 All right, thank you Chair, we are live and ready to start the meeting. Okay, good evening members, officers and any members of the public who are viewing the live stream of this meeting. Welcome to the meeting of the joint local plan advisory group. My name is Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins and I am the Chair of the group. The joint local plan advisory group is a non-decision making group comprising of members of Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council and its role is to provide a stair 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 planning authority for decision making. This meeting is being administered by South Cambridgeshire District Council and all of the papers from this meeting can be found on the website. Members, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. When your name is called, please will do unmute yourself, unmute and introduce yourself. And as I stated earlier, my name is Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins. My vice-chair is Councillor Katie Thornborough. Katie? Hello, I'm Councillor Katie Thornborough. I'm a Petersfield Board Councillor and the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport at Cambridge City. Thank you. Councillor Tim Bick, if you're there yet. I don't think so, I don't think I see him. In which case, Councillor Neal Shailer. Hello, yes, I'm Neal Shailer. I'm the County Councillor for the Romsey Division and also Vice-Chair of Highways on County. Thank you. Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. Peter Sanford, the ward Councillor for Kexton and Papworth Ward in South Cambridgeshire. Councillor Simon Smith. Hello, I'm Councillor Simon Smith, representing Castle Ward in Cambridge City. Thank you. And Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams. I'm the member for Wittlesford in South Cambridgeshire. Now, do we have any other members present? Doesn't look like it. Oh, I see a hand up. Thanks very much. So yes, Councillor Pippa Halings and member for Histon in Bington and Orchard Park. Welcome. Also, Councillor Martin Smart. Yeah, hello. So I'm one of the Councillors in King of Sages and I'm Chair of Pining Committee in the City. I see your hand up. I just want to say a Councillor Bick is here. He is here. Yes, I'm sorry, I couldn't get any sound earlier on, but I am here and I represent Market Ward on the City Council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bick. Welcome. Good to see you. And also we have a number of officers joining us this evening. We have Jonathan Dixon, the Planning Policy Manager at the Shared Planning Service and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, who will be leading the meeting with support from other officers. John, could you kindly introduce yourself, please, and inform us of who you have on hand to assist with the meeting? Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. We've got quite a range of officers with us today, reflecting the range of officers in the themes we're going to be looking at. So I'm going to go down my list alphabetically. I've got Bruce Waller, who's a Principal Policy Officer in the Policy Team. Charlotte Morgan Shelbourne, who's a Policy Officer in the Team. Kiran Davies, another Policy Officer in the Team. And I've got Emma Davies, who works on sustainability issues, helping us with the local plan. And we've got Lizzy Wood, a Senior Policy Officer in the Team. And we've got Matt Patterson, who works with the team as a consultant, working on infrastructure issues. And I think I've picked up everybody. Well, that's quite a team. Thank you, everyone, for all the work that you've done on the draft local plan so far. And we're obviously very keen to hear on topics that we'll be discussing this evening. But before we do that, I see Councillor Smart's hand is still up. Councillor Smart, did you have something you wanted to say? Or that was a... Sorry, that's a mistake. I apologize. Thank you. Right. Now, for apologies. Anyone absence? May I ask our Democratic Services Officer, Lawrence, if there's any apologies for today? Thank you, Chair. And good evening, everyone. The police announced we have a full house with no apologies this evening. Good. Always nice to have a full house. Right. Now is if any members have any interests to declare in relation to any of the items of business on this agenda? Ah, Councillor Williams. Councillor Williams? Yes, Chair. Thanks. I just want to note that the university that is my employer has commented on various aspects in the plan. So I just wanted to note that. Okay. Thank you. Interest subsequently becomes apparent during the meeting. Then please just let us know at that time. Okay. Councillor Smart, I can still see your hand up. I can't seem to get it down on my screen. So apologies for that. The next item is the minutes of the previous meeting. So, members, the minutes for approval have been published as a supplementary document. And this was for being held on the 21st of November, where homes are well-being and social inclusion were covered. Have you had sight of them? Yes? Okay. Does anyone wish to make any amendments to these minutes, please? I'll tell that as a no. In which case, can I take the approval of these minutes by affirmation, please? Yes? Okay. Thank you. Now to business. We now come to the item covering the infrastructure and job section of the local plan. And at this point, I will ask John Dixon to introduce the item, please. Over to you, John. Thank you, Chair. The team is going to present the item for me. We're going to take you through two main sections today. We're going to talk about the representations received on the local plan first proposals in relation to the infrastructure theme. And then we're going to take you through the jobs theme. For each theme, we're going to go through a brief reminder of what the proposals were in the consultation. Then some of the feedback and also some of the next steps. And then under each section, there'll be an opportunity for a member discussion where officers will be interested to hear member views and feedback. So I'll hand over the team at that point. Okay. Thank you. So Bruce Waller here. I'm going to introduce the chapter on jobs. And there'll be a number of my colleagues who will also be presenting a number of the policies. So without, and that will, that will, so I will cover the introduction of the jobs following by the new employment and development proposals policy that I'll be handing over to my colleague Kieran followed by Lizzie, then through to Charlotte and then back to myself. And then after that there'll be a discussion point. So without further ado, so the jobs section, this really covers the kind of overarching work stream for jobs of which the aim was to encourage a flourishing and mixed economy in Cambridge, greater Cambridge, which included a wide range of jobs while maintaining our area's global reputation for innovation. While some respondents supported the overarching aim of the policies, a few stated that more emphasis needed to be placed on the rural economy. With some groups perceived that the forecasted jobs figures to be too high, others considered that the plan should better promote the high technology clusters, logistics and life sciences sectors. So focusing on the first policy, JAD, new employment and development proposals, the national planning policy requires plans to help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. And this policy has the principal aim of setting out the criteria that will determine where the proposals for employment development in urban areas, villages and the countryside are acceptable. So in terms of comments, again, the policy attracted support from a wide range of groups. However, some developers and landowners perceived the policy to be too restrictive, specifically in relation to logistic space, education facilities and high technology clusters. And a few respondents criticized the policy arguing there was already enough employment in the area. I'm now going to hand over to my colleague here in dealing with supporting the rural economy. Good evening everyone. So yes, this policy sets out the approach to the reuse and replacement of rural buildings and proposals related to land-based enterprises. And compared to other policies in the batch, it didn't attract a lot of representations. University Cambridge and a few parish councils support the policy. There were a couple of representations that recommended widening the policy scope to really encourage the reuse of the buildings that provided quite specific feedback. And one developer also recommended protecting small rural employment sites. And it relates to the third bullet point, although it wasn't related to the policy's intent, it didn't discuss bridalways and the policy. There were a couple of representations related to bridalways. So the campaign to protect rural England was a bit critical of the expansion of bridalways, saying that it would harm farms, whereas the British Horse Society spoke in favour of the economic role that bridalways can play. So yeah, might be something to take forward when we write the policy. And then this is me as well, moving on to Policy JAL, Protecting the Best Agricultural Land. So this policy relates to when and how development on agricultural land and soil should be considered. And again, there wasn't compared to other policies in the batch. There weren't a lot of representations for this one. Some parish councils, government and political organisations expressed support for the policy. Some, again, the campaign to protect rural England thought that the policy didn't go far enough in protecting agricultural land, whereas others, I think the Cambridge and South Cambridge Green Parties, thought that they were worried about the policy prioritising food production over habitat restoration. And one developer questioned the need for policy as they perceived it to be already included in national policy slash building regulations. Thanks, Kieran. So the next policy is JPB, Protecting Existing Business Space. And this policy states what existing business spaces will be protected and how businesses and employment land can be changed to other uses. So there were some individuals, developers, charities and parishes that were expressive in support of the policy. Others considered the policy to recognise the importance of flexibility to change of uses. The manufacturer DB Group Holdings wanted the policy to support the expansion of existing successful business spaces rather than just protecting them. Next slide, please. Thank you. So policy JRW, Enabling Remote Working, sets out how proposals for remote working hubs and working at home should be considered. The policy direction proposes that policies will support the creation of local employment hubs and outlines acceptable types, scale and location of development. Again, parish councils, developers, political organisations and the University of Cambridge express support for the policy. A few respondents argued that the policy should be strengthened to refer to the provision of home office space and new dwellings. Contrastingly, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Green Parties asked that extensions were tested for proof of the need of home working. I'll pass you now on to Charlotte. Thanks, Lizzie. So going on to policy JAW, Affordable Workspace and Creative Industries. This policy proposes requirements for affordable workspace to be delivered as a proportion of larger commercial developments with affordable workspace defined as workspace that has rental value below the market rate, that generally being 80% of the market rate or less. If on-site provision is not possible, the policy does propose to require financial contributions for equivalent off-site provision. And the policy proposes that major mixed-use development should incorporate both an element of affordable workspace and should also include provision for creative artist workspace, rehearsal and performance space. There was some support to this policy from developers, parish councils, charities and landowners, but there was also feedback whereby some people wanted the cost to be set at the lower rate than the 80% to ensure they were actually affordable spaces and other questions, the requirements of the policy due to a perceived lack of evidence. There was a developer response also received wanting the requirements for affordable workspace to be formulated for an assessment of the commercial viability of the scheme. So moving on to the next slide, thank you, which is JEP supporting a range of facilities in employment parks with this policy proposing to support appropriately scaled leisure, eating and social hub facilities where they support the functioning of an employment area and where they're primarily aimed at meeting the needs of workers on site and to help manage transport impacts and developments. We had general support for this policy for the approach. Some respondents did receive sorry requested additional facilities to be included in the policy, these being sharing facilities, water refilling stations and green spaces. And there's one particular comment taken out which noted a perceived lack of facilities on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Thanks Charlotte. So the next policy is JRC Retail and Centres. So this policy covers the treatment of retail and leisure including arts, culture and entertainment and other city centre proposals in Cambridge. It includes district, local and neighbourhood centres as well as the towns and villages of South Cambridgeshire and Outer Town Development. So several respondents including parish councils expressed support for the policy and supported town centre and village shops specifically. A few respondents objected to the potential use of Article 4 directions which restrict the conversion of shops to alternative uses. Contrustingly, Cambridge Past, Present and Future supported the use of Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights. I'll hand you over to Bruce now. Thanks. Thank you. Next to policy, JVA Visitor Accommodation Attractions and Facilities. So given the importance of tourism for greater Cambridge economy, this policy is needed to explain where hotel and other uses of visitor accommodation development will be supported in Greater Cambridge and how the loss or gain of new hotels visitor accommodation will be managed. It also hopes to address the matter of people converting where plan commission is needed. The conversion of residential properties to permanent visitor accommodation used within Cambridge and elsewhere in South Cambridgeshire outlines the exceptional circumstances where it does not adversely affect the supply of affordable affordability even of local housing including rental values, residents' amenity and sense of security and a local area's character of community cohesion. In terms of responses, many respondents expressed support for the policy. Suggestions to improve the policy included recognizing the potential role of retail centres and the city centre to deliver accommodation and a suggestion that new visitor accommodation should provide a contribution to mitigate their impact. Concerns expressed over the loss of housing to short-term accommodation, greater Cambridge's capacity to sustain increased visitor numbers and how the policy could potentially undermine the planned screen infrastructure policies and greater clarity was requested regarding when new attractions would be acceptable in rural areas. Moving on to policy, JFD, Faculty Development and Specialist Language Schools. So for background to this policy the University of Cambridge and associated colleges are an important centre for teaching research as well as being a significant employer. ARU is also an important centre of learning. There are also several specialist colleges in Cambridge which itself is an important centre for the study of English as a foreign language. For these reasons it is important to support the growth of higher education institutions, language schools and specialist colleges while minimizing the potential impact of their new development. The policy will state when new faculty higher education development, teaching hospital facilities, specialist colleges and language schools will be supported and the requirements that will need to be satisfied. In terms of comments, a variety of different respondents expressed support for the policy although one responder objected to the policy on the ground that hosting students provides funds for families who have a low income. One suggestion to improve the policy included making a distinction between privately operated and state funded education due to changes of use under permitted development rights. ARU also suggested improvements to the policy to better reflect their strategic priorities. So I appreciate that as perhaps a bit of a brief whistle-stop tour of the job section but we now move to a discussion section where if you have any comments on particular areas. Hey thanks very much for that team. Yes just on the last point about the specialist language in schools I'm not sure I quite understood what the objection really was. So the students hosting students providing funds for families who have a low income what's the problem with that? So I think it was a bit of confusion within the policy because we don't mind people having home shares where they stay with a family but I think they interpreted that we didn't we don't want whole houses in the private sector being taken out of the private sector local rental market by language school students we would we don't mind them as part of a part of the specialist school language school growing if they could provide students in home home stays that is fine and I think they misunderstood our concern that we don't want students taking up houses in the private rental accommodation because that removes houses from the private rental market so I think it was more of a confusion over what we meant by private housing. Okay so we need to clarify that then. Yes yes okay okay so I am conscious that we have a lot of perhaps different specialist questions so one officer might not be able to answer all the questions so I'll be looking to John for a lead on some of the jobs because one of our officers who works in this area is not with us at the moment so I don't know how we do this. I don't expect one person to know everything especially when we've had you know the team of you actually making the presentation so that's fine all right. Thank you chair please take us through it. Okay I think the first hand that was up was Councillor Fombrough. Thank you for the presentation I got a few things I was interested in the comment about is early on about too restrictive on logistics base education facilities and high tech and we I'm particularly keen that we try and understand what's happening with retail more and in line with our carbon climate target so logistics base and last mile deliveries and sustainable transport is really important and I don't know whether we're allowing for things like larger logistics centres and then smaller one and last mile delivery and and also bus depots things like that that's one question another question is we've got a lot of Airbnb in very short term lets in Cambridge where they we is out of control almost in some areas and can we somehow ensure that where we want homes provided that they remain homes or they have Airbnb within what's legally permitted is that possible yeah it's just those two thank you. Should I start chair we've got various experts as Bruce alluded to but on the logistics you may recall in our January meetings and the economy evidence update we alluded again to logistics as one of the sectors we were looking at terms exploring its needs and the evidence did indicate that the need for logistics had gone up since we did the first evidence a couple of years ago and you could you could look at reasons for that and it could include changing shulming habits habits as was discussed we certainly have already made provision for logistics in our first proposals you recall an allocation on the edge of near the A14 services and we also include a policy on last mile as well looking at how that that transfer as goods can be supported but we did say in January as well we needed to look again at how the plan would respond to the logistics issues and that's still a task with us before we come back to you with the draft plan. We are very much looking at retail Bruce do you want to pick that up we are still doing our study to look at the draft plan aren't we? Yes so we have been doing with my colleague Lizzie retail surveys every year just to see how our current centres in Cambridge are working we've also rolled that out to some of the larger rural centres in south Cambridge here just to check just how what percentage are vacant and of those which aren't vacant just how kind of what's what's what's now in them because we've now got class use E which allows things to happen without us necessarily knowing about it so and correct me if I'm wrong Lizzie but you know the centres are looking right healthy in terms of low vacancy rates I think what's happened is the landlords have had to reduce their rents and so that is now attracted people where they are in opportunities which they probably wouldn't have had perhaps 10 years ago I mean in in Cambridge city centre even even streets like on green streets off of Sydney Street have now got a lot lower vacancy rates than they were about 12 months ago and I mean I don't know I mean we all shop we haven't stopped shopping for food and and I think people do like to try on things before they actually buy something so I think some of our shops are now becoming more like warehouses and they don't want you to buy in the shop because that means they've got to have a lot of stock it's much easier for you to choose it online choose it make sure it fits in like it we jump on the mattress go online to buy it and that and that still saves all the logistics so we had well I know our consultants tells that our that there has been a recent update from Covid in terms of how things are we've not actually that's actually only come out a couple of weeks ago so one of my action points is to pick up with our retailers of our consultants to see how things are but I don't think it's as bad as perhaps well we're lucky I think where we are we have a vibrant economy and our vacancy rates are generally lower so I'm not saying we're out of the woods yet but I think it's is people are coming back to the city centres and there's not so many vacancy rates in the in the in our centres and then on the just to finish off on the air B&B point we did cover this again in the first proposals and clearly you know a lot of of this type of use doesn't require planning permission but where it does we did set out the circumstances where where proposals needed planning permission the impact on amenity parking so on a perfectly you know possible being considered through that process Bruce or something I think one thing as we update our evidence base one of the key aspects is to actually consult with the large employers in Cambridge because often they generate a demand for they recruit people and offer them three months accommodation as part of the deal to move to Cambridge so I think the idea is is that we consult with them to see whether the new apart hotels of which there are quite a few now under construction in the city how they will help take pressure off them to go through the more informal air B&B routes I also I need to check with development management but I think on new developments it is perhaps easier to provide covenants or restrictions which prevent the use to residential however there is the matter of compliance that I think is often how do you actually prove there's been a material change and that is still kind of a debate which I think is you know finding that balance but I I like to think we are able to try and make it less difficult on new bills where we can perhaps introduce some sort of restrictions where it becomes something that can be enforced yeah okay just a point that's just occurred to me on that one because one of the things that came up under J policy JRW was homework in space and the request to have something for you know working from home so hopefully what you've just said doesn't contract you know the policies don't contract it themselves I'd like to think none of our policies will contradict them and we will obviously need to do a bit of a test where we get need to writing them to make sure that we're not somehow making another policy but yeah it's I mean uh yeah I'll have to yeah it's just I just want to raise that yeah yes well we will we don't fall into that uh into that trap okay thank you okay the next question uh the next person was council oh gosh no I've lost the um was it Peter Sanford I think it was me yes thank you chair um I was also going to raise the matter of logistic space um I think John's covered a lot of my um queries but my perception is that greater Cambridge is surrounded by huge logistic sheds in Bedford Peterborough Eberhill and others um but I am conscious that my delivery vans DPD come from somewhere in Northamptonshire with a transit van um Amazon come from Milton Keynes so it's not so much the last mile we need to need to think about it's the last maybe five ten miles but the medium sized logistics distribution I'm also wondering um do we need to think about Amazon and their drone parcel deliveries which I know they're piloting in bridge somewhat tongue in cheek but you know 10 years time and in the life of this policy there may be drones over our heads interesting over to you Jonathan all right no I think that's it's an interesting point and certainly if you look back at plans uh development plans for this area going back say 20 years um the strong focus of those plans was to restrict um warehousing to only being the smallest spaces but um I guess the lifestyles have changed and when the evidence we reported in January highlighted the perhaps low level of provision compared with many comparable cities so our job in the local plan perhaps is to how to balance that issue because there is a sustainability angle to meeting the needs of Cambridge locally but perhaps that balance is not trying to compete with areas which are as you say the surrounding areas which you're so focused on that so that's the the challenge we've got to find the right path through indeed I will just add as well John that in the next infrastructure chapter we've got policy on freight and delivery consolidation and infrastructure and delivery so we'll go into a bit more detail with the reps on those okay thanks Lizzie okay um kind of slotting big thank you I have them I have five questions I'm sorry um but I'll upload them I'll unload them all at once they're diverse um so the first one in the introductory uh general section on jobs um the collection of uh of representations seem to include the emergence of this debate about um um the proportion of high-tech versus non-high-tech employ and um I then went back to look at what we were actually saying and I couldn't really find any sort of any basis for the comments and I I wondered if you could help point that out and are we saying anywhere apart from the fact that um that we don't want to see warehousing and distribution national or regional are we are we expressing any sort of sort of steer in the direction of um high-tech life sciences that's the first question um the second one um was um a smaller one about remote working um so there were some points raised there about um whether what we're what we're suggesting here should lead to something that we say also about new build and I wonder what officer's thinking is about whether that does or should go anywhere whether whether we we're looking for some provision within new build that enables home working the third one uh is about the affordable workspace um policy which I you know I find really um a very alluring um policy um but I'm still a bit confused about about how this can be delivered as a policy because you know when we're talking about affordable housing we're looking to sort of um registered social landlords to deliver that and I don't see the comparable kind of institutional framework for affordable workspace um I also um wonder about the criteria we all are comfortable looking for housing at the sets of criteria that have been transparent and publicly approved and I wonder where that's that would come from if anywhere and then the other question is about change over time because perhaps more than you know even more than people um businesses can start off maybe satisfying criteria for affordable workspace but you know some of them grow and can get much more successful and one wouldn't really want them to necessarily hog limited affordable workspace when that they we could be letting new new businesses move in um so I just wonder what what the thinking was uh behind that um the next one was about retail and centers and I'm just really wondering um what what controls we really have about this in um uh any more given the the the use class e and and I'm I'm feeling that a lot of members want to have more influence than this new use class gives us and I really believe that we we should be informed perhaps by um some paper from offices about what our tools are what what we are left with to influence this this area because um again it's not obvious to me and the fifth and final question was about uh visitor accommodation and I um just a bit building on what Katie Thornborough said earlier um you know I think this is a really serious one we've we put we pushed the boat out or we're trying to push the boat out in a number of policy areas based on Cambridge maybe being a little bit extreme or a little bit different from the average place around the UK um and I believe this is this ought to be one of them uh because the centre of Cambridge uh is absolutely facing as Katie says uncontrolled conversion of housing into um short-term visitor accommodation and I do think that our policy levers are not obvious again um they tend to be very reactive we wait till someone converts a building and then we try and do something about it um for reasons that I understand but I'm wondering whether we should um be making the case for some for some policy which maybe lies a little bit outside the regular national framework those are my five questions Jen wow okay well that's quite quite wide ranging um but I suspect yes I'll hand it back to Jonathan but I think one of the things that um came to my mind when you mentioned the last question uh Councilor Beak was potential for article four to be used but that's just my view perhaps John can say something to it uh really good points and part of my response will be these are exactly the sort of issues we'll need to look at through the draft plan um in terms of the point about the general reps and I guess the focus on making provision for high tech and other sectors um again looking back at our previous employment evidence in the January reports what we've done is try to explore the needs of all sectors and identify uh what provision would be needed to support them so that's not only high tech but also those other sectors including industry and including logistics so the aim certainly has been to respond to that needs evidence by looking to make appropriate provision through the local plan um as we're you know required to do by the MPPF which asks us to look at what the needs are and seek to respond to them unless you know unless we are unable to do so for clear reasons I'm paraphrasing but that's probably what it says um in terms of the remote working um I think part of the answer there is that um for new builds certainly um our policy would seek to propose us to implement the national space standards so that's really the mechanism making sure that the new homes have the right sizes and are fit for purpose and the remote working policy is more about helping homes to adapt so it's the it's the um new new homes size standard really is the mechanism offered to us when controlling those size of room sizes and so on uh going forward on new homes I think your points in affordable workspace are very well made I think when we put the proposal forward um in the first proposals um it was clear we still needs to work up the detail of the criteria and we're very much still looking to do that the policy has been implemented previously so we looked at what's been done in London and there are examples of space being um brought forward um I think it is possible to come up with appropriate criteria and appropriate percentages I think there are developers I think from the representation so recall there are those that potentially be willing to support that so I think it's certainly worth um our continued development of that policy but I don't deny those issues we need to work up in detail to bring to you um the retail um yes again I would agree Class C has made those controls on change of use and so on more difficult certainly significantly less than they were when the previous plans were adopted and the new local plan will have to reflect what controls we have and what we don't uh article four was referenced in the consultation as one tool that is available um but um there is quite a high bar in seeking to um deliver those that would need to overcome as they're not straightforward to apply so it's something we could continue to explore but you need very strong evidence about a very particular situation like you go into more detail but they are not straightforward to to deliver um on the VISTA accommodation again yeah good policy challenges I think they're very much issues we'd look to explore as we develop the policies it's one where when we come back to you with draft policies you can see if it meets the overall requirements which we set out to achieve in the first proposals document but yeah certainly something highlighted as being concerning the document will be looking to develop appropriate policy but um Jonathan if I can take you up on that um you do there is evidence presumably of the sort of numbers of houses that have been converted to air bnbs in the city uh yeah I think that's something we do have evidence of and we're working with our dm colleagues to look at that certainly that evidence would then help us in demonstrating the need for a policy approach so we'll be looking to see what we can gather up yeah okay all right thank you for that uh I think the next uh is Richard councillor Williams right I'm just getting an eye on the time and we're nearly at the hour point so if we can be quick so that we can go to infrastructure that we've got the time to discuss that all right yeah thank jared quick one because most of my other questions have already been asked um just a comment that jumped out of me I'd be interested in officer's reaction to comment 58021 and the the feedback we got from from the imperial museum concerns of the draft policies don't provide supportive um or don't promote the the growth of um clusters as required by the nppf paragraph 81 and 83 just be interested in officer's response to that comment that was received clusters off it just it says the draft policies do not support have insufficient uh support for technological clusters oh I see okay so just interested what what officer's response to that is because I I think what's behind my questions I think that's probably an argument that'd be coming down the road at us so I'd be interested in the response over to you Jonathan so my my recollection of this particular comment was it was linked to um a call for site proposal about um avtech so an aviation related sector and I think there's been some um planning application activity since then on the Duxford site all I could be recalling wrong um so um I think that the question is whether the the plan itself does enough to support new clusters and I think the argument would be um that we do prime provide a supportive um planning framework for clusters uh in the policies within this chapter for example appropriate supporting new employment about where the policy says it would be appropriate but also making um land and floor space provision in some of our new developments for example now they aim to provide a flexible um floor space provision to make sure we do support support our clusters so I think I would challenge that that point and consider that we have made um a response um as to whether they're site specific point um the first proposals didn't include um the uh proposals that I think they put forward in the call for sites but I think the reasons were provided for that in the evidence space. You happy with that Councillor Williams? Thank you right I've got two more um Councillor Smart and Councillor Simon Smith so Councillor Smart please Councillor Martin Smart. Yeah I'll put my hand up earlier on it was just about that thing to do with the um Airbnb and stuff in Cambridge well in in South Cams as well but I mean I think we need to um think about our interest in that don't we as well because we're developing a um Airbnb type hotel so um obviously if we're it sounded like we were trying to encourage um people to use those sorts of facilities that we are investing in rather than using the sort of general market which obviously would be an interesting Sorry Court um I think you know as planning offices my response and my colleague's responses are neutral to that we're trying to respond to the land use issues I don't think that's something we're taking into account in you know making our responses. To do is um make policies that we fall fall off ourselves. Yeah of course yeah yeah okay thank you uh Councillor Simon Smith please Yeah thank you chair um it seems to me there are four different forms of land use requirements employment land use requirements in the sub region um the first one relates to provision for last mile deliveries and there's been some redevelopments at Bar Hill it seems to mean that that would be the most ideal location for last mile deliveries and then within the tech sector there are various sub markets uh so there's obviously the high tech office based there's the hybrid which mixes offices and manufacturing there's the wet labs and they um all will require um development plateaus for zero carbon development because they're international um corporates and they need to have zero carbon development as part of their corporate social responsibility commitments so that's that set the other group are those companies which are involved in business to business and business to consumer and they're typically in small light industrial states and these are states are under enormous development pressure but I don't see that we've made alternative provision for those um light industrial unit markets and the problem is is there's an employment land use allocation um then it gets taken up by the tech sector because they can outbid um the businesses who only want small light industrial units and I see that as a problem which is going to occur during the um during the plan period um and then the last one relates to bus depots and because if we are to have a high quality bus system we will need more buses and we will need places for them to be laid over and so maintained and so on and so forth and the biggest depot is in northeast Cambridge and the proposition is to um redevelop that and so we need to think about that seriously and the obvious place location for them is to have perhaps a small service centre in the city um possibly northeast Cambridge with satellite layover spaces at the park and ride sites but that means that requires the cooperation of the county council and it probably means development in the green belt so we've got a complex mix of land use planning problems to address challenges I would like to call them challenges thank you thank you that's lost with okay Jonathan Bruce they're all yes definitely challenges we've got to look at just on the industrial states um clearly again as far as we are able um the current Cambridge local plan seeks to protect not just employment land but specifically identifies the number of um industrial estate type uses in the city so clearly there's an opportunity there to review and update that policy and it will be about looking for that type of space and not just the high tech space so thinking about some of the new communities identified um in the first proposals they all identify the idea of planning for a mix of uses and not just northeast Cambridge so there are other opportunities to look for new spaces like that as well so it will be about how we curate these spaces to meet our various needs but I think as was said it is a challenge but certainly one we'll be looking to face up to okay okay um Councillor Thompson I notice you put your hand up again can you just come back briefly on one thing that the remote working I think this remote working should also be for children school and university students and also education for older people and I think it should be not just in homes but in facilities nearby community uh halls or spaces um where you can hire a room with more equipment if you want to do a special presentation or get people together for example at the clay farm community centre so it's not just in homes but nearby thanks okay thank you for that um Jennifer you'll take a note of that okay thank you um we move Councillor Shayla that was very late sorry just a very quick comment there's also remote diagnosis at home as well and while we're trying to provide more things within 15 minutes of a home and there was a mention of drones before just just to mention we have Starship robots already in the area already functioning and I'm sure that wasn't on the agenda 10 years ago so those ones with the um things that yeah yeah those ones yeah those ones yeah thank you for mentioning those okay um I guess the next the next item is on the infrastructure section am I right well but to you then team thank you good evening everyone I hope you can hear me it's Matt Patterson here um my computer's lagging significantly so you will come across distorted on my screen but hopefully you can see and hear me um just waiting Karen's presentation to come up I am introducing to you tonight the series of proposed infrastructure policies that collectively seek to ensure that alongside the spatial framework the planned homes and jobs are supported by sustainable travel options and will have sufficient water and energy supply and will have access to community services and facilities required to support the health and well-being of both existing and new communities um the policies are concerned also with ensuring that the infrastructure that we secure uh can be provided at the right time and in the right place as well as ensuring that um we can manage the complexities of how infrastructure is delivered both on large sites but in Cambridge also we have many different bodies responsible for delivering different elements of infrastructure that are required to then be coordinated and come together to provide a sustainable community as a whole so the policies themselves need to address those issues and as such the policies um cut across many of the main planning themes throughout the emerging greater Cambridge local plan including the strategic objectives around connectivity inclusiveness climate change and placemaking um not surprisingly the vast majority of respondents expressed significant support for the policies and overarching aims within those there are suggested improvements primarily associated with um ensuring we maximise the benefit of whatever infrastructure we put in place given the level of investment required for these um and we also ensure that uh that that infrastructure that we put in is not at the expense of of damaging the environment um and obviously a good a great influence was put on health and transport infrastructure which are two key uh infrastructure requirements uh a few residents criticised that I think primarily uh there was a focus that we're not doing enough regarding reinforcement of the energy network grid and ensuring um that that we will have sufficient capacity within the energy network um to accommodate growth well beyond the plan period as well um a couple of respondents argued that that they they think that the infrastructure should be operational when up and running before the new development comes into into um operation or occupation um that's quite difficult especially if you're trying to get developers to fund that infrastructure they sort of need to either rent floor space or occupy housing or sell housing uh to then raise the capital to provide the bulk of the infrastructure but certainly some infrastructure does need to be put in place early and it's about how you phase and manage that infrastructure delivery to ensure that the community health and well-being is maintained throughout um and there was a slight criticism or as well that there needs to be more joined up thinking between national infrastructure projects and more local infrastructure projects all right uh next slide so the first policy that we have is around uh sustainable transport and connectivity and I already we've discussed at length the need for managing uh transport and in particular the need to ensure that the transport response um uh adequately to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transport networks uh overall the the policy itself uh seeks to do that primarily through locating development either where it minimizes the need to travel so locating next to or to uh good amenities as well as jobs or uh where there's already effective sustainable transport provision so locating them at transport hubs or where we have connectivity already or where we are proposing to improve uh sustainable transport connectivity and all of those are aimed at reducing our reliance on private cars we know that that's a significant contributor to climate change um but that also includes uh as we've just recently talked about and discussed servicing requirements and how we ensure that new homes and new employment floor space can be adequately serviced in a most efficient manner that reduces the impacts of servicing requirements as well um and overall we need to be mindful as well throughout the policies around how infrastructure is changing as we're already aware uh drones and robots delivering your goods was probably something unthought of until we looked at Star Trek movies years ago so I'm going to pass over now to one of my colleagues to deal with parking Kieran yeah that's me yeah thanks very much Matt um so yeah so this this policy sets out requirements for uh cycle and vehicle parking including uh infrastructure for electrical sorry electric vehicle parking um it proposes to set minimum standards and also another key requirement from the policy is that it will ask developers to submit evidence of a management strategy for any communal charging points so you had a quite a few representations this policy um variety of organizations parish councils landowners developers expressed support for the policy but there were suggestions to improve it so some of the representations wanted more information about what the required parking standards will actually be uh I think a couple of landowners slash developers wanted a bit more flexibility uh relating to site specific circumstances so in relation to what that quantum of parking standards would be and then there's also um a comment relating to aesthetics and wanting um this policy to ensure that it minimizes visual clutter uh and then there were criticisms of policy so the home builders federation um perceived the policy to already be that should be covered by building regulations national building regulations um there are a couple of comments um that wanted the policy to prioritize sustain sustainability over parking so you know quite anti car parking generally and related to Matt's earlier slide there are a couple of comments about ensuring the electric grid is upgraded to actually deliver the policies intent uh so this is me again so um yeah if the freight and delivery consolidation so it sets out how development of delivery hubs should be constituted and how development proposals should provide space for servicing storage and deliveries and um the overall policy intent is to seek opportunities to reduce the number of freight and servicing vehicles and their environmental impact um was promoting more sustainable forms of transport so yeah there are quite a few comments expressing support for the policy um the yeah the environment environment agency posted quite a wide ranging uh representation where they wanted um safeguarding to to include uh what is required for water infrastructure green infrastructure and oh sorry i'm really wrong sorry smart smart game is transport um they posted a very substantial representation where they um wanted the local plan so i didn't want identify specific logistics hub and they also included possible uh suggestion suggestion where it could be located um a few respondents argued that the policy needed support changes to enable car cargo bikes to deliver goods um yeah quite a few comments related to cargo bikes and then there was also quite a few landowners and developers who criticised the scope of the policy and also said that well their sites could deliver the policy's intent as well um so now passing on to the actual safeguarding important infrastructure next policy thanks kiran so yeah safeguarding important infrastructure uh the policy sets out what infrastructure should be safeguarded from the impacts of development and how they should be assessed namely proposing to continue the safeguarding of lord's bridge radio telescope and existing rail freight facilities and sidings at ducksford foxton forebun and wittlesford so there was a variety of organizations expressing support for the policy's direction the environment agency as kiran mentioned before noted that they would uh expect safeguarding to continue and include uh requirements for water infrastructure green infrastructure and biodiversity uh the university of cambridge angle water and defense infrastructure provided lengthy representations and explained why their infrastructure needed to continue or be safeguarded next slide thank you yep cool that was a bit slow uh policy iad is on aviation development and this policy seeks to control development proposals related to aviation and sets out in what circumstances and how development should take into account aviation safety so there was some criticism of the policy with the county questioning implications that aviation would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment one individual argued that the plan does not do enough to protect airfield so there's a bit of a contrast there it was also requested that the policy aligned with proposals from the civil aviation authority regarding safeguarding zones hand you over to Matt thank you hopefully you can all hear me i think Emma are you dealing with this one are you online certainly can do yet um but yeah this is a policy eye e eyes this is energy infrastructure master planning um so this policy was effectively looking to uh require uh or include requirements for energy infrastructure to support development and included a requirement for energy master plans for certain scales of development so there were quite a lot of comments expressing support from the policy there were a few suggestions as well as to how the policy wording could be improved so carbon neutral Cambridge uh suggested uh wording in the policy to require developers to contribute to the costs of improving the power grid which is something that does happen um there was also an argument that smart localized energy systems should be the new norm no matter the size of new developments we did also have a few objections to the emerging policy as well so persimmon argued that the outcomes of an energy master plan needed to be considered within any viability assessment um and metro property unit trust wanted to see a specific threshold within the policy for non residential more space all right the next one's back to me which is uh policy uh iid which is about infrastructure and delivery so pretty much all new development creates additional demand for infrastructure and services and it's reasonable for developers to address that need nor to ensure that their development proposal is considered sustainable in planning terms so the policy in itself sets out how we will ensure that new development will contribute to the delivery of needed and essential infrastructure and this includes delivery by the developers themselves on site uh and as well securing contributions towards either local um offsite provision as well as towards strategic infrastructure that serves a greater proportion of the population as well um most of the respondents expressed uh support for the policy there were specific issues raised uh in in particular around health and education provision um and ensuring that uh we did more uh in terms of cross boundary working on those matters in particular uh with neighboring local authorities um outside of south cambridge and then the wildlife trust as well uh wanted a greater emphasis placed on the funding of strategic natural green spaces and green infrastructure um comments highlighted the importance of securing developer funding and and applying effective thresholds to when we'll require those and specific requirements within the policy to ensure that the triggers are robust for those okay so it's on to me for the last point of this section um policy i di digital infrastructure um digital infrastructure obviously being a significant part of everyone's contemporary living goes across a lot of things um but this policy in particular sets out how development should contribute to greater Cambridge requirement for broadband mobile phone and smart infrastructure the policy does intend to set requirements for applicants to submit a connectivity statement with a planning application to demonstrate how their proposal um would meet the requirements in the policy um so you'll see this there was general support for uh for the policy from Paris councils political organizations and landowners but there were criticisms received to this policy um including that the requirements should not exceed building regulations um that the policy wording was too loose and is refining um and that there was a perception received that the policy did not go far enough in requiring high speed connectivity um there was also um request from developers around the clarity of whether all development would be uh required to submit the connectivity statement um in the policy so now we will move on to the next slide in discussion all right thank you very much team um certainly a lot to go through there um I do have a few questions but I will um just mention one thing regarding the payment um of the requirement for developers to you know provide funding for things like improving the grade as you know as well as everything else that we asked them to provide for I think my concern here is that uh the government as part of its um uh planning policy upgrade is looking at the new infrastructure levy um which if memory serves me right uh is they're intending to make that payable prior to first occupation or something along those lines which means local authorities will be required to find some way of funding that which in my view is putting the horse before the car really uh should be there I don't see how we can do that I mean what's what's your view on that I don't know when if they'll come up with something but obviously we need to be sure that in trying to in trying to make sure that the uh the developments are actually delivered we can't be asking them to make to you know to spend too much because it comes back to affordable housing will be the one that takes the hit yeah so if I can answer that um essentially it's coming out of the leveling up bill that's still going through parliament at the moment which is the proposal to effectively scrap both the community infrastructure levy and section 106 regime and replace that with a single development tariff if you like so a development levy and that development levy would cover all obligations that fall onto developers so all policy obligations including affordable housing and would uh effectively be a lump sum of money that then the local authority would need to determine whether they wanted to take part of that as affordable housing on site uh what proportion they would want to take towards strategic transport and all the other elements that fall out of a development to typically pay for uh there's lots of issues with applying a tariff of that nature um not least many developers mince give rise to very localised specific impacts that need mitigation and it's currently unclear whether those fall within the a a nationalised tariff if you like system or not um and even when you have a a levy system such as that proposed as you say the timing of when that levy is paid will be key I think one of the things the government is looking at is whether local authorities have the appetite to borrow on potential future receipts if you like to forward fund infrastructure which I can't see in the current climate any local authority having the appetite to take on those sorts of liabilities the only saving grace we have is that when they introduce the community infrastructure levy it took years and years to implement and then about several years after that to try and get it to work appropriately and effectively so there will be a long transition phase before they can bring any in any new um sort of uh planning obligations regime if you like um to replace the existing two regimes and hopefully that won't uh come in in at any time before we get the greater local plan through the planning process fingers fingers fingers crossed I think fingers crossed by everyone yeah okay thanks for that I don't think I wanted to talk about was the cargo bikes being allowed to deliver goods that is something that's already happening in London actually um because I don't know somebody who is involved with the company that does that so um yes you know it's a good observation and hopefully something that we can um uh you know we can make allowances for in the policy okay uh Casino Fombra I see your hands up yeah uh thank you very much uh one of um I I find it difficult the whole thing about the local plan fitting in with sustainable transport I find is is is frustrating and it's a bit of a Maya quagmire about how we affect sustainable transport plans and how they affect us and do we take priority or do they take priority or if they bring a you know if bus depots go in in a certain location should we be thinking about the you know the how that would affect or provide opportunities going forward so that there's a I'm still getting my head around that but I just wanted to make that point and then but one thing we don't seem to talk about um is about trains that much and one of the things I learned earlier today was about the freight um capacity at Felix Doe and by I think we were possibly by 2040 they could double the amount of freight coming into the country and currently 25 percent of that goes on the trains if it if we don't improve the capacity on the trains we could have something like seven and a half thousand hgvs on the a14 a day going past you know past Cambridge affecting the poorest part of Cambridge and the pollution the effect on the roads is just appalling and I think we need to have we need to try and the trains seem to be for me that the the most reliable fundamental things to get right in a transport system and then off that we we hang the other um the possibilities about bus improvements and public transport and everything like that so I don't know what influence we have on the trains but it just seems like an incredibly important thing that's really going to affect this area um so much thanks um I don't know if Jonathan wants to come in but I will start us off yeah it is a bit of chicken and egg I think it's um you you're in some ways reliant on significant government funding for new strategic transport infrastructure um and it all depends on where you can put those routes in and therefore then maximizing the benefits of having those sustainable new connections by locating development as close as possible to to those new new railways new connections busways or whatever else they are um and often at other times it's it's still within our gift to say we're along those transport uh corridors is the most sustainable locations based on an assessment of a wide range of factors in Greenboud and community and impact on surrounding neighborhoods as well as infrastructure beyond just sustainable transport which is always a consideration so and just on the other I think there is an opportunity with uh East West Rail to look at new railheads of course um we have a number of safeguarded railheads but they're probably at capacity so it's probably a good time to look at what provision for new safeguarded railheads we can make to address the freight capacity demands moving forward. Obviously the other thing what I'm saying is we're not the transport authority which I know members are aware so it's it's a matter also for the local transport plan to explore these issues and as Matt said our local plan certainly almost seeks to react to those transport opportunities you know north northeast Cambridge um biomedical campus you know even Cambor and their prime examples of our plan seeking to react to those opportunities. Okay uh thank you for that um right next is Thank you chair there's a comment in one of the slides of questioning I think the adequacy of the park and ride sites. Remember I think we've got three either new sites or relocated sites um I'm not sure who the authority on sizing park and ride sites is but are we confident that they'll cope with the increased usage over the the next 20 years particularly in the ready congestion charge starts displacing people towards the park and rides. I think that's one way we would have to very much defer so clearly Greater Cambridge Partnership is looking at what the park and ride needs and bring those sites forward and also the combined authority as our local transport authority developing its local transport plan has that has that important responsibility for buses as well but certainly uh from the local planning authority perspective on our local plan certainly we look to make sure we work very closely with these organizations so they're very clearly aware of our emerging development plans and sites so we can um look at how we plan transport in parallel uh with development to make sure needs are properly met. Thank you. Yeah I think I've just seen that it was policy I struck ST um and in that also there was criticisms that well I guess perception that the national local infrastructure aims are not joined up how can we join them up? I guess it's by engaging with our partners through our duty to cooperate which we endeavor to do to show we've done a good job in talking with all our partners and neighbours so we'll keep trying to do that. Thank you um I wonder um I have two questions here um the first is about the sustainable transport and connectivity uh policy um and I I want to know there's a lot of um lot more interest in um for example the extension of 20 mile an hour limits in residential areas uh I guess if we knew that that was going to be applying to a new development then we would want to have be able to require the the roadways built with things like traffic calming in order to make that uh effective uh and is this policy the place where that sort of trigger needs to be or where would that need to be uh and then the second question is on the policy about parking and electric vehicles and it's the same sort of question really um the um the prior to adoption it seems that a lot of um parking enforcement that gets installed in new new developments is private and very ineffective and very unaccountable and uh I wonder whether um there is something that can be said here about um the policy for the management of parking enforcement? Yeah uh so if I deal with the first one yeah the policy itself is concerned I think with ensuring that we deliver sort of low traffic neighbourhoods so in that context it does give a very um strong indication of our preference for traffic calming measures and other things to deliver on their aspiration and whether that includes a 20 mile an hour uh max zones uh I think is is a given as well on the parking enforcement I think we may struggle primarily because it will be seen as a matter that's slightly outside planning um but we again it's something we can investigate look at further. Just on the on the on the speed zones the other things we're doing is um working with the county council who are developing an active travel tool kit so to provide um clear guidance on how to support acts travel but I'm sure that would address the nature of routes within a site. The other opportunities we have just thinking more widely is um the encouragement national guidance for um uh design guides and toolkits and so on um so there's probably opportunities again to look through our future design guidance at those issues as well in greater detail so I guess the question is how what you deal with at a policy level or whether you then look at it more in your design level but that's certainly something we need to think about. Okay uh thank you for that um I'll come back to some of the uh questions um that came up as we were going through the presentation um still on the electric parking or electric vehicle and parking there was uh one of the criticisms uh was that the policies intentionally covered by building regulations um surely building regulations if we are looking to be um I guess more advanced than you know get ahead we can't we can't rely on just building regulations can we I mean similar to saying we wanted 80 litres per person per day for what are you saying and building regs is saying 110 but then you know we're trying to be leaders in this and looking ahead to 2041 so what's your thought on that? You want to pick this one up Emma I think the answer is that the building regulations only go so far so that's that's my understanding from having discussions with colleagues in environmental health who are obviously quite interested in electric vehicle charging and my understanding was their concerns were that building regulations didn't go far enough and that there were too many circumstances in which you may not actually get electric vehicle charge points as well in certain situations I think there was some concerns around where you have areas of off-plot parking not having sufficient provision within non-residential parking as well so I think as with many things with building regulations it kind of sets a minimum requirement but there is a feeling that in a lot of areas where it is viable to do so it is better to go beyond that make sure that we are getting more in the way of electric vehicle charge points and more efficiency in many other areas indeed indeed indeed and one of the other things that I'm not sure I think was part of this discussion about the management of common charging spaces just had a question mark because it was one of you know the comments and I mean it in my mind it was like if there's going to be common charging spaces in new developments how's it going to be managed now I am one of those who doesn't like management companies in new developments as a pet hate of mine and you know because where they exist those who live on the new estate have to pay additional fees to their council tax and they don't see why they have to do that and some of these management companies charge them a few fingers you know and the service is poor so this is going to be added to you know it's like so who's going to manage those that would have to go on with the management company wouldn't it potentially even more or higher level of charges so normally you can tie electric vehicle charge points into each residential property even if they've got kind of slightly off-plot parking a lot of the schemes that we're already seeing are able to tie this electrical supply into private dwellings and then obviously the homeowners would do any necessary maintenance there are also companies out there who will undertake all of the installation and any ongoing maintenance themselves and they will work with developers to provide that service I know that the city council are actually working with a company who will do the whole provision of electric vehicle charge points plus ongoing management and management and maintenance of those within some of the car parks for example so I've actually had a couple of developers come to me and ask are there any companies out there who can help us with this and there are those organisations out there they're not linked to the management companies right that I know a lot of residents have issues with and I have lived on a housing development where a lot of the residents refuse to pay their service charge so yeah there are ways of keeping that separate to that charge okay no that's great that's good to hear thank you does anybody else have any questions otherwise I have one or two more I don't see any hands up for now okay I will carry on until I see hands up um now uh policy IA do which is on the aviation development um now my thought was that we don't stick well I think what was it says was that uh criticism is that the county council question indication that aviation would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment uh I cannot support that um simply because right now I am dealing with the uh Newton airspace deployment six which is causing a heck of a lot of problems here um and so yes um I suspect you know when we looked at this there wasn't anything like that here but now there is so this side of south camps is struggling with um aviation noise and pollution so how do we take that into account I think to be fair this policy perhaps has a different um angle than thinking about those you know lute and airport type type issues um this this policy came into existence because we've got um various small airfields like Duxford which um are um used for um event days and leisure and so on okay and the policy was actually put in place I think um in one of the earlier local plans in Iran I think it goes back to about 2004 where it was important to put a framework in place to allow applications where they were seeking to um increase use to enable them to have a proper framework and policy in place so that the impacts of those uses could be um properly considered by the the planning committees and that really was the aim of this policy to continue to effectively maintain a framework to allow the committees to appropriately consider those types of issues it wasn't really the aim of the policy to be thinking about those lute and airport type issues I guess that was it that was it's real okay okay so that immediately raised um you know the alarm bells in my head really um especially when civilian vision is also involved and they're involved in this and they're ignoring the problems but anyway that's that's um that's another situation I guess okay well thanks for that clarification um what's your thought on having smart localized energy systems as the norm I suggested by one of the responders it would be lovely um I would question at the moment whether it would be viable at all scales of development um we're certainly seeing lots of discussion around things like micro grids that sort of thing coming forward but it tends to be on larger developments and particularly where you've got land owners with a long-term interest in the sites because it does we're talking quite large commercial developments at the moment kind of research park type things um I think there might be smaller developments that do want to look at micro grids I mean we've certainly seen that sort of thing on individual houses for example um but I think it would be challenging to require that for all scales of development because it normally needs a certain level of specialist input which not all developments will have access to um so it's certainly something we can encourage but I think we would find it quite difficult to set a very low threshold for that but I wouldn't rule it out I think we can have some encouraging words in the policy that's you know would say that we would welcome that that sort of approach from all scales of development okay as long as we can encourage that yes absolutely as time goes on we see how things are then when we need to review the plans can strengthen it yeah as as and when needed I mean um the one quarter which is actually next door to me here they've actually put on all their buildings they've got solar panels and when it's all going it can actually power the buildings yes so I guess that sort of thing is what yeah what we were trying to okay and obviously as well our emerging net zero carbon policy as well is going to require renewable energy generation on pretty much every single development as well so you will see an element of that coming forward um assuming we we get that policy um approved as well so all homes will be well all buildings will be looking to generate as much power as they would actually use in a year so that will come through as well it's then whether you can connect all of those up and kind of make smart grids and so it all gets a bit technical okay all right I see Councillor Fomber has got her hands up I'll come back with something else what yeah oh yeah just following on to that I know in Cambridge there is a group of flat owners where they have six flats and they're looking at putting in solar panels and a mic as a micro grid so it's not just providing electricity for the common areas it's for individual flats so they've got a shared uh storage and it's it's a really sustainable thing because you should you want to be using the electricity while it's being generated and if you these are each flat benefits and as so it kind of it people have different life patterns so it's used more efficiently so if it can be done retrofittedly then it we should be looking at these on new homes and I also in Cardiff they're looking at putting retrofit as a retrofit putting it in one street a micro community heat network yeah so I'll again again if we can do these we need to do it right we need to retrofit it's a much bigger problem than the new build but if we can if they're doing it in retrofit we can do them in new builds as well thanks absolutely thanks for that um I think my final points probably will still be on this energy infrastructure master planning uh did you say persimmon sort of I did that the outcomes of energy master plan should be part of the viability assessment yes is that something that is viable to use nobody can live there we are going to be doing a little bit of further work actually which will feed into our viability assessment which is looking at what are the demands generated by the growth envisaged in the local plan and what additional infrastructure will be required so we can certainly do a high level assessment of what infrastructure do we need to support growth where are the areas where reinforcement might be needed bearing in mind some of that has already now been funded so we've got funding approved for two new pieces of grid infrastructure to the south of Cambridge which is going to meet a lot of the forecasted growth for the south of Cambridge but we will do some additional work to look at the other areas to see what sort of need would we be looking at what would be the cost of providing that infrastructure that's also going to feed into some wide work that's being done on a Cambridge local area energy plan as well which is going to look at this issue across the whole of the county and that will give us an initial indication of costs which we could potentially factor into we could look to factor into our viability work the energy master plan would then take that work and look at it in a finer grain of detail so they'll have a lot more accurate information on the mix of development the sorts of demands that could then update and factor into the developer viability work to look at what they might be required to pay to upgrade the infrastructure and the local area energy plan as well that is also going to look at some different ways in which you could fund some of this infrastructure as well and it will look at things like you know potential for forward funding some of this infrastructure part one it will be important considering what the proposed plan is for infrastructure levy I mean the way it works at the moment is once a developer has got planning commission for a site they will then make a connection application and that is when they will find out how much they might need to pay for their connection and we're trying to bring some of that work a little bit further forward so we've got an idea kind of at the strategic planning stage how much some of that will cost okay of course that makes sense and the other infrastructure that you know needs to come forward I think is on the digital infrastructure you know broadband I mean considering what this area is broadband provision is it's a bit on the poorer side that's my view anyway um that's not fun bro okay can I give Simon Smith a chance and then I'll call you again okay that's very great to stop you chair thank you very much I think we do need to refer to the elephant in the room around infrastructure planning investment and delivery we're operating is kind of like one of those broken Britain models that was designed to generate profits for investors and low costs for consumers and it's no longer fit for parents for purpose so for the UK power networks to invest in the two new grid reinforcements which were promoted by the GCP they had to refer to a special fund so it was like so rather than addressing the fundamental problem about what the new purpose of these utilities should be there's a kind of now we're sticking with the old model and the market you know little model and we're just going to put sticking plasters on it and we're not really ever going to resolve this through you know albeit very worthy local you know interventions and initiatives and it's got to be done at a national level and it applies to buses and it applies to water and it applies to power and that's what we're actually faced with and we are in the Greater Cambridge area at the epicenter of the problem because these are going to require substantial investments to support the forecast growth so that wasn't a question that was what councillor Nick does which is a speech councillor Nick I will leave you to make a comment on that I'll come back if you want to councillor Vanbrough I was just going to say there was a mention about green infrastructure and I think in these slides and although we had biodiversity and green spaces but I'm it is it is so incredibly important you know the biodiversity emergency is at least as bad as the climate emergency doesn't and I'm I think we should I think the more the focus we have we can put on it the greater I think the green infrastructure proposals which is the plan with different areas around Cambridge that we've got in the emerging local plan is absolutely fantastic and it was the first time I think there was a call for green sites I think that's absolutely brilliant but I think how we how we ensure that that those are right how that fits in with the nature recovery network which is only going to be advisory not mandatory how can we ensure this is maybe not to be answered today but just we need to ensure that somehow we do deliver these and they fought their form part of our open space policy it's it's part of a policy to relieve pressure on triple s eyes it's about enhancing the river cam corridor all of so it's it we've mentioned it but it's I think it's really important thanks Jonathan did you want to come back on that well I mean we've gone through a whole a list of really important issues which you know we've highlighted through our first proposals and some great comments today from from members which will take away I guess the other issue we've got to do as officers whichever system we're working in we've now got to do deliver you an infrastructure delivery plan which is intended to show how all the requirements that the policies would bring about can be funded and then we do also need to produce a viability plan because we are required to show that our plan is a different one so we'll certainly try and seek to deliver all these policies but we will hope to bring you and explore those in detail to show you know can they be delivered if there's compromise made how do we we make those and come back to you with that detail at our next stages okay thank you very much I think actually that brings us to the end of the meeting today I just want to say thank you very much to all our officers for the great work that you've done and you carry on doing very appreciative of all your work and also for me I want to say thank you to Councillor Fombro for chairing the last two meetings whilst I was away and for Councillor Sanford stepping in as the vice chair well that I think draws our business to a close for the evening and this is the last meeting of this cycle for the joint local planning advisory group we don't have it yet for the next meeting but obviously we will make that public once we know you know what the next cycle is going to be so once again thank you everyone for your time this evening and enjoy the rest of your day and week thank you thanks everyone thanks everyone