 Okay, 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 Katie Thornborough and I am the usual vice chair of the advisory group. However, the usual chair cannot be with us today, so I will be assuming the role of the chair for the meeting. Members, we will need to appoint a vice chair for this meeting. I would like to nominate Councillor Peter Sanford. Do I have a seconder for this proposal? I'll second chair if need be. Thank you, thank you Henry, Councillor Batchelor. And can I take that as affirmation from members? Okay, I've got nodding, so thank you very much. So, Councillor Sanford, you are appointed vice chair for this meeting. The joint local plan advisory group is a non-decision making group comprising members of the Cambridge City Council, South Cambershire District Council and Cambershire 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 planning 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 Katie Thornborough. I am the vice chair, I mean the vice chair is Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, yes, Peter Sanford will councillor for the South Cams Ward of Eckston and Papworth and temporary vice chair for today. Councillor Henry Batchelor. Hi, evening chair, Councillor Henry Batchelor representing South Cams District Council's Linton Ward and a Cabinet Member of the Authority. Councillor Katie Porra. Thank you chair, I'm Councillor Katie Porra. I represent the City Council, I'm reserved so I'm sitting in for Councillor Bick this evening. Thank you very much. Councillor Neill Schaler. Hello, yes, I'm Neill Schaler, I'm county councillor, vice-chair of highways. Councillor Simon Smith. I'm Councillor Simon Smith, I represent Castle Ward on Cambridge City Council. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Sorry, thank you chair, I'm Richard Williams, I represent the villages of Wittlesford, Triple O Heathfield and Newton on South Cams Council. Thank you. May I start with a few housekeeping announcements? Please make sure that you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to speak. When you are invited to speak, please switch your microphone back on. When you finish speaking, please turn off your microphone and ensure that if possible you use a headset when speaking. If you wish to speak, please would you indicate in the chat column, please also indicate if you have to leave the meeting via the chat, otherwise please do use the chat, do not use the chat column for any other purpose. This meeting is being administrated by South Cams District Council and all the papers for this meeting can be found on their website. We have a number of officers joining us this evening. Jonathan Dixon, the Planning Policy Manager at the Shared Planning Service will be leading the meeting with support from other officers. John, could you kindly introduce yourself and inform us of who you have on hand to assist with the meeting? Thank you Councillor Thornborough. We have a good number of officers. We have Bruce Waller, Principal Planning Policy Officer, Caroline Hunt, Strategy and Economy Manager, Charlotte Morgan-Scholl-Born who will be taking some notes for us. We have Jenny Nutkin, Principal Planning Policy Officer, Joanna Davies, Principal Planning Policy Officer. We have Lizzie Wood and Mark Davies, Senior Planning Policy Officers. And we have Stephen Kelly, our Director as well and I think I've got everyone there. Thank you. First item on the agenda is Apologies. Members, may I ask the Democratic Services Officer Lawrence Damary-Homan if we have received any apologies today? Thank you very much Chair. We've received two apologies this evening, one from councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins and the other from councillor Bick with councillors Porra and Bachelor Kylie stepping in the substitutes. Second item, Declaration of Interests. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item or business on this agenda? If an interest is subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point? Councillor Sanford. Yes, as the topic is housing, I should declare that I'm a non-remunerated Director of Urban Street Housing which is a subsidiary of South Cams Council. Thank you. Okay, we will go on to the third item which will be covering the home, so we cover homes, wellbeing and social inclusion of the local plan. May I ask John Dixon to introduce this item please. Thank you Councillor Thornover. Yesterday this is the third of our series of meetings exploring the issues that were raised in representations to the local plan and the many comments we received through the consultation at the end of last year. This meeting we're covering the big themes of homes and wellbeing and social inclusion. We've broken the presentation this time up into three sections, so we'll have two sections on the two halves of the housing policies and in the third section on the wellbeing and social inclusion. After each set of policies are run through, we've left a space for discussion for members, so I'm going to hand over now to the team who will take you through the first section. I'm going to share this line. So the home general slide please. We're going to start with homes this evening and just while we thought that infographic on homes on the slide, as well as receiving comments on the individual housing proposed policies, we had some general comments that aren't specifically attributed to particular policies. So there was basically general support for the proposed housing policies from parish councils, County Council and some site promoters and the general comments were basically support for the local plan requiring a wide range of housing like different types sizes and tenures as this would improve the ability of the market to achieve enhanced levels of delivery and more support the creation of diverse communities. And then there was some specific kind of comments on things that we should take into account, but let's move on to affordable housing being the first policy area. So in the first proposals, the proposed approach for this is to require 40% affordable homes to be provided on site on site, some 10 or more dwellings with some specific exceptions. It would also set out the proportions of different affordable tenures such as first homes or affordable or social rent homes or shared ownership, etc. And it will include other specific requirements relating to clustering and design with reference to the various housing strategy annexes. So in terms of the key comments we received, communities basically would like us to make sure that the 40% requirement is strictly enforced and affordable housing to be more affordable, more secure, targeted at local people, older people and key workers and including a range of tenures including low cost home ownership. Whereas you have also developers who would like to see greater flexibility based on viability and including review mechanisms and also arguing that allocating small sites will deliver more affordable housing more quickly than relying on strategic sites. You've then also got the exception sites for affordable housing. So the proposed approach for this is that where there's an identified need, we would support an exception site that's in an appropriate location and which is proportionate in scale to the settlement it adjoins. And then there would be specific requirements in terms of sites within the green belt. So on this there was general support for the policy with communities again wanting stronger controls and developers and landowners wanting more flexibility. Next slide please. So moving on to housing mix. The proposed approach in the first proposal to this is to require new housing of sites, new housing sites, ten or more dwellings to provide an appropriate mix of housing sizes. So that's based on basically the number of bedrooms within the house. With the proportions guided by the recommendations in our housing needs a specific group study which is on the slide the figures that are shown on the right-hand side in two tables. The proposed approach also includes some flexibility to allow for exceptions where an alternative housing mix is justified by site specific circumstances. So it depends that we particular sites there would be difficult to provide exactly these proportions of homes. And we will also encourage a mix of types of homes. So flats, houses, bungalows, etc. On this there was broad support for seeking a mix of house sizes. Developers would like to see more flexibility to allow for market conditions changing need and site specific circumstances. Parish councils would like to see us securing more bungalows and the protection of small homes. In terms of housing density the proposed approach is to seek appropriate site specific densities taking account of the accessibility of the development but also the local character. So this means a design-led approach will be used to determine the optimum capacity of sites. On this there's general support from developers for no specified density and making the most of sustainable sites. So as they that's consistent with the MPPF there's comments that developments need to be designed to be appropriate for local circumstances. So we need to avoid impact on land or townscape and heritage from all buildings if you're trying to see too high a density on a particular site. And also that we need to factor in accessible green spaces that's now crucial especially in high density development. And there is concern from some that high densities will create the slums of tomorrow as four schemes have been allowed in the past and if this continues there's the thought that this will impact on both the quality of life of people living in the area and also quality of the site. So the policy in relation to garden land and subdivision of existing plots the proposed approach is to continue the approach from the two adopted local plans by resisting inappropriate development of gardens and the subdivision of existing plots. There was general support from a range of public bodies and third sector organisations for this approach and with comments that gardens can mitigate flooding, provide a buffer for ecology, provide that moral rule setting and but there's also comments that we need strong wording to prevent detrimental impact on neighbours. In terms of residential space standards and accessible homes. So this policy would cover kind of three related but slightly different things. So the first part of the policy is to continue the approach from the adopted local plans to require all new homes to meet or exceed the nationally described residential space standards. So that's the standards that relate to specifying kind of sizes of particular rooms and the overall size of the dwelling in kind of internal measurements. We've then got an approach requiring all homes to be accessible and adaptable dwellings with specific proportions of dwellings required to meet the M42 and the M43 building regulations standards. So they're the different standards for accessible and adaptable homes and the third part of this policy would be that there's a requirement for all newly created homes to have direct access to private immunity space with specific standards for different types of dwellings and locations. So there's broad support for the use of nationally described space standards but some developers have asked us to provide additional evidence and justification for their use as required by the MPPF so they don't necessarily consider we've covered off all that we required to just carry that forward. And there's support for the accessible and adaptable home standard with some requesting more homes to be delivered to meet the M43 standard which is the kind of higher standard and relates to kind of wheelchair user homes either designed to meet a specific person from the offset or that can be adapted at a later point to meet the requirements of those users. And again some developers have asked for further evidence to support us applying these standards and don't consider that just having an aging population is a sufficient justification. Next slide please. So specialist housing and homes for older people. This is this is about specialist housing designed for a variety of groups such as older people, disabled people, people who would say drug or alcohol dependency or those requiring refuge from violence. So kind of a mixture of kind of specialist housing and the proposed approach is to require specialist housing to be included within the mix. Housing within new developments particularly new settlements and urban extensions but then also to include a criteria based policy similar to what is in the adopted Cambridge local plan applying across the whole of the area that is for kind of individual developments for specialist housing. And communities have commented that they want housing to be integrated with wider communities and making sure there's better access to services. Looking for better choice and design in terms of homes for older people especially this housing to allow people to downsize or to stay in their own home for longer if desired. And developers want to see specific allocations for these types of homes and a greater choice of sites. And then finally in this section self and custom build homes the proposed approach is to require five cents of all new homes on sites of 20 or more dwellings to be custom or self-built homes provided that we have demand on our custom and self-built register. We would include a mechanism that allows for plots not sold after 12 months of appropriate marketing to be delivered without that requirement. And we set out that where it's kind of a fully self-build or custom build development so not just a proportion of a larger scheme that that would be allowed wherever residential development would normally be allowed. So there's general support for the policy and the link to need being measured by the register however there was concern that the policy will not meet either the quantitative or qualitative needs. So kind of people on the register of course specific things that they're looking for and there's concern that our policy wouldn't necessarily provide something that would specifically meet those needs. And there's request for further evidence and justification for our approach. Developers would like a more flexible approach to self and custom build homes that allow schemes on the edge of villages to come forward for these. So they would like to see kind of an exception site policy for self and custom built homes and then they also developers also highlight concerns about viability and changing demand. I believe that's the end of the first section. Does anyone have any questions or comments to make on this first section? Councillor Poror. Thank you very much chair. I actually wrote down the questions shall I just go through them all there's a couple just get them out there. I'll try and be brief. So on the affordable one this may come up later why is it only 20% built to rent? I appreciate we also have that covered off later so I obviously obviously want to pick that up later instead. And could officers just talk a little bit more about the first homes and the 25% and why we do we have to include that and you know or could we not? I think on the garden subdivision something I've noticed on the planning committee is we do give quite a high priority to the biodiversity issues and I think that came up in the comments. So certainly I think certainly speaking of half the city planning if Katie agrees the chair that's something I personally would think would be useful to make very clear particularly now that we can go back and look at trees that maybe have been felled before the site comes through but were there when we kind of took that baseline. For the residential space standard totally supportive of having a garden space standard because the city currently doesn't and I think I think your South Cam's policy is very good there so I would very much support that. I think the other thing that has annoyed me greatly on planning as I've said before is we have a space standard for a one person flat but in effect they come through all the time with a double bed shown and as I understand it there's basically no way of enforcing a one person restriction once it's built because in effect we're building a two person flat for 37 square meters so I'd be really grateful for officers consideration as to whether that is something we can either strengthen or just not have because to me it seems a bit odd that we keep building these 37 meter squares for one person but I'm reasonably sure that once you rent it a lot of the plans even have a double bed in there so that to me seems a bit of a discrepancy in the national space stands but I don't know whether that's something we can remove and again immunity space is always an issue in the city. We've had some issues recently where a redevelopment has come through where it's quite a small part has been redeveloped like a couple of walls and there's been an argument well we don't need to provide immunity space I wonder if officers could comment on how we might strengthen that to be clear that you know even a redevelopment we would expect immunity space unless you know unless it's a grade two list of building with absolutely no space you know I would hate us to be in a situation where someone can put in lots of extra flats and no immunity space purely because a bit of it's a redevelopment and I think currently our local plan isn't as strong on that as it could be and yeah M4-3 I just wondered why we don't have market housing included in that I'm guessing there's a legal reason but I would certainly like to see that as an aspiration for developers that with market housing some M4-3 compliant you know disability for those with a permanent long-term disability would be useful and I think last question I'll get them all done the self-filled when we say custom I've seen some developers where you can kind of customize your own flat you know they'll say if you buy it off plan you can put two studies or one bedroom is that does that count as custom in this policy or are we are we actually being saying that he's genuine custom so it wouldn't just be a developer wouldn't be able to just say well we're offering your choice of a bedroom or a study that's a custom build I'll finish now thank you I'll shut up I think Jenny perhaps you could answer those because there's quite a few questions and then we'll go to the other councillors thank you so starting with built a rent although we might come back to that when we've done built a rent why is it 20% affordable on built a rent development partly because that's the kind of national benchmark and it's also partly to do with kind of saying partly to do with viability because of how because built a rent developments that kind of operate in a slightly different way because they're not selling off homes in the same way it's to do with what's appropriate to them that can be kind of delivered and still secure all the other things that we'd like as well but there is the potential if we could show something different to secure something different and obviously we would have to look at you know we'd have to do more work to be able to demonstrate that we have tried to say that if you're developing a new site that includes both built a rent and other types of homes so normal market and normal affordable homes I don't quite know how to describe them and differentiate and that we'd still be looking for 40% kind of overall so you potentially get more other types of affordable homes to make up that difference so hopefully that's question one uh first homes and the 25 do we have to provide 25% first homes uh when it's in a written ministerial statement and therefore well that might not be in the NPPR at the moment and the advice is yes probably unless you know something unless something changes nationally then yes we would have to and obviously we're aware that it therefore has implications for what what you then got left of your 40% to to provide other types of affordable housing and so yeah there's how you balance that up and still try and secure as much social and affordable rent homes as you can because there but what our housing team are telling us are the ones that are most needed uh gardens I think you were just commenting rather than asking a question uh presidential space standards and the one passing flat uh I'd have to we'd have to have a look at that and see what we can do I don't know that we've got an answer now I think with the national space standards I think the issue is that we effectively take on using the national standards rather than create our own so unless the less things change the approach previously has been that you either use the national standards or you don't they're not necessary and I'll give to edit but of course you know this all depends on on future policy but that's why we took that position in the current plans sorry Jenny you carry on we'd love to have a look at your comment about um amenities space standards for fun of non-holy new developments I think is what you were asking like when there's kind of a conversion or those kind of things so yeah but obviously they're potentially more difficult to provide exactly a specific space stand like a specific amount of space if you're converting something that's already there but yes um take your points that you'd still want them to have private amenities space so we will let's see what we can do to take that um the m4 3 standards and whether we can have a market requirement um I think yes we need to we'll need to re-look at it we ended up where we did because we went round in kind of various thought processes um but yes I think there are other comments within the comments we've received so we will need to kind of go back through our thought process and see whether we can do something different um I think part of it to do with exactly which part of m4 3 that a or b or that it comes to because ones to do with kind of having a specific person in mind for the house when you build it which is obviously more difficult to do for a market home than for an affordable home where you potentially have someone in mind earlier on in the process but yeah we'll have we can have a look the sale from custom build question in terms of does offering studies and bedrooms I think it I think where it's required it's supposed to be more than that it's supposed to be like people having an actual their first occupier having an actual say in the design of something although obviously in flatter developments and certain high density developments etc you've got less scope for what you can do because obviously you've got the outline of a flat and therefore it's there's maybe a kind of finer point as to where something is kind of custom build cost I think there's this thinking that northeast Cambridge their reaction plan we ended up referring to things as kind of custom finish which is like a kind of subsection of custom build but takes account of the kind of high density nature and the ability people would have to be able to input I think that's all your questions thank you Jenny um the the order of the next the councillors is uh I'll just the bachelor Williams Sanford and then Smith so councillor bachelor please thank you as the oldest hand I'll take that thank you um so just just two questions from me then um firstly just going back to the first homes issue I mean I was I might be wrong but I was under the impression that the developer of the builder actually building the development out would need to apply for to for the first home scheme or there was something that didn't make it as attractive as a scheme to developers I mean I thought there must have been a reason why we don't have that many in greater Cambridge um but yeah just some clarity on that would be helpful from my point of view and then second one on the exception sites um yeah I appreciate the policy is currently it needs the demand is led from a needs assessment locally is there any is there anything in the policy around how recent the needs assessment would need to be because I know we have had situations where needs assessments have been put forward that's you know sort of five six seven years uh in the past prior to application so yeah I just wanted to question if there's anything in the um in the policy around um timeframe for that needs assessment haven't been undertaken that's it thank you thank you we'll have um Councillor Williams have you got a couple of questions as well and then Jenny can answer both Councillor Bachelors and yours yeah sure I've just got two um so um I'll try and keep keep them brief um just a question on the um housing mix I was wondering if any work has been done about the impact of the percentages on market housing because one thing that struck me about bad off proposed figures is that the percentage of one and two bed market houses is much lower than the percentage of one and two bed affordable houses so it's 15 to 25 percent market two bed but for two beds it's 35 to 45 affordable um ownership and 35 to 40 affordable rented so you know it's a slight concern I think is that the number of smaller starter homes going on the market is is is limited so people have limited opportunities to buy them because developers mostly building three and four bed which are much more expensive um so have we done any sort of analysis of the impact of these percentages on that that flow of of of start homes to the market because that's an important you know step for people to get on the housing ladder that's how I started out with a the small two bed house um I slightly worried these days that um we're not really building enough of those but um anyway so so I'll be interested in the in the sort of thinking and the research behind that um the other point I wanted to make is about um densities I probably do have to register a slight objection I don't really like the I don't support the density policy because of course in south cams at the moment we've already we've got a different policy we have densities for different you know um types of villages and we're I think essentially proposing to get rid of that for the new plan that the guidelines we've currently got for you know minor rural centres etc etc um group villages and have this design-led approach and and I do worry that the design-led approach is is really a bit of a free-for-all because it becomes very very subjective um as to what the developer you know manages to convince the planning department is appropriate um and obviously developers have got a vested interest in putting more and more houses on the same land um which might be appropriate in some cases but it's often not appropriate in a in a village and if we've got rid of any sort of standard it's very difficult to um to actually oppose what could be inappropriately dense um developments in in village settings thank you thank you Jenny could you answer those four questions thanks going back to councillor bachelor's first question about first homes how the written ministerial statement and the guidance is worded at the moment means that we are not actively seeking first homes at the moment because they're not in a requirement of our current adopted local plans and therefore that's why there's not many potentially coming forward um equally like you said there are a form of affordable home but they don't get handed over to a housing association to kind of manage the process of letting them kind of selling them kind of doing that side of thing they are um the house builder themselves has to kind of carry out that process with the support of the local planning authority doing various things so I think in terms of their attractiveness to developers they're not hugely attractive to them because they require them to do additional kind of work rather than just selling and market home which is what they're used to doing or kind of handing over affordable homes to someone else to kind of go through the processes for I don't know whether that hopefully answers question yeah I knew there was there was some reason why it was less attractive to build you know to allocate first homes as it was to you know to general affordable units but thank you for that except inside and the needs assessment I don't know that we specifically say requirement in our current policies uh colleagues is suggesting it's they should be within the last five years but we need to work out whether we can go as far as Jenny that's actually that the housing team uh specify five years when they're looking on exception sites it's not planning policy but it's what the housing team and South County district council require so but whether we whether we can actually put it in the policy in a plan we'd need to think about that how's it so Councillor Williams question about housing makes some impact on of the proposed proportions of different types of homes so we've been guided by the housing needs a specific group study that's been done for us by G. L. Hern on behalf of us and a range of other local authorities so I don't have the exact wording in in my head of what that evidence-based study says but so we'd have to kind of go where and they can see whether that gave us any indications to what they thought whether that gave us any further information in terms of why they thought a smaller proportion of market smaller homes than affordable smaller homes I don't I don't unless John's got any thoughts I don't have any immediate thoughts well they did explore I think the the needs relating to different tenures so I suspect the answer does come from that there's perhaps more of a need for those those family homes in I think the affordable and the more small homes in the other so I suspect it is explored through that evidence quite happy to take that away and make sure that's for that's a point that we look into as we're drafting plan and we respond to those issues but I suspect our aim has been that that evidence base that we've secured working with the housing department so on because give us you know appropriate steer as to what those needs you know actually are to make sure we're aiming that policy correctly Stephen do you want to come in on that or after Jenny finishes the last the next question which was about Dr Williams's question about density says one more question Jenny I think Jenny Jenny if you answer that I might have a comment on that but I'll I'm I thought I might comment on the previous discussion as well but that's fine well that was more possibly less of a question and more of a comment I would just add in terms of density and in understanding yeah what how we create a policy that gives enough gives enough comfort that developments will come forward the right density in the right locations and that would by while also taking the design led approach which is more what the MPPF is speaking these days rather than a specific policy requirement for particular densities in particular locations that Councillor Williams all right thank you I mean on that on that last point it is I suppose if I'm formulating a more direct question for you it is what what protections will there be for us to be able to you know resist inappropriately dense um and I there did seem to be a lack of real world data in there it was all modelling projected population growth and all of that but I mean if you were able to sort of take it away and maybe come come back to me on that that that would be be quite handy but I must admit the modelling didn't didn't fill me with confidence it would translate into the real world thank you um Stephen Kelly do you want to come in it's just a a couple of comments I suppose is is that and and Councillor Williams point around how do we get safeguards in place obviously neighbourhood planning is is one such mechanism that can provide a bit more contextually specific appraisals of of character and and so on and and to bake that into development plan policy I think the practical implications of trying to come up with a um justifiable density figure for example would probably involve you having to actually review most settlements in order that you could relate it back to their character in order to be able to justify to a planning inspector that it was uh appropriate to fix density rather than to rely as Jenny's referred to on nppf um and a and a design-led approach which is what um generally policies are are heading towards um but I think I I think um certainly is an important point about how do you get local distinctiveness which in turn is about uh empathy and appropriate um development forms in in those locations I think that is something that um we're hoping to um explore as we progress forward in the short term that may well be able to translate into some finesse in our policies and Chair I know that you're particularly passionate about context in terms of the proper appreciation of of um the design process in terms of the point around housing the only observation I wanted to make is that one of the things in in some respects that we've faced is that housing policy moves faster than the eight-year local plan process and so there is something around as we go forward how we can keep our housing policy contemporary and how the planning uh the the development plan can make um gives significant weight to that but allow members to um evolve the planning policy response on any particular application with that those kind of contemporary products and also ways of thinking um that might require a greater degree of agility as we go forward than perhaps the kind of eight-year process for the local plan so there is a there is a balance here around how our joint housing strategy picking up on on Council Williams concerns around uh and a potential imbalance but also um a Council of Bachelors comments in terms of um the the consideration of of how we can best meet the needs of our of our community that that I would urge we don't want to prescriptive a policy in the plan what we want is to make sure that the policy references and gives substance to things like our housing strategy which are of course locally controllable as opposed to being subject to examination and approval through the local plan process but but I think the points were all made well made thank you Stephen um so have uh Councillor Sanford and then Councillor Smith thank you thank you chair yes I was actually going to comment on the linkage between density and the slums of tomorrow um I think Mr Kelly made the point that it's very difficult to have one size fits all policy in a um varied account is Cambridge here and what is appropriate in Eddington for example would be totally inappropriate in Wittlesford so um definitely some flexibility needed there um I also had a question if we monitor um whether we're providing sufficient specialist housing for example for wheelchair users there's a development here in Papworth a few years ago where the Papworth trust sold off land which previously accommodated bungalows for those with special needs they were all demolished and guess what they've been replaced with high-end mostly detached housing I have no idea where the residents went so whether we are providing sufficient specialist housing for them perhaps one of the officers can answer that question thank you Councillor Smith so I just wanted to pick up the point on built a rent um this is described as introduced by the government as a new asset class uh not homeless for people to live a new asset class with a view to government introducing new forms of sources of finance into the construction house building industry and to meet a identified housing need in the private rented sector the 40% contribution towards of and it's incentivized by this relaxation of the affordable housing requirement and it's it is now widely known the market is a hot investment item this new asset class so I wouldn't be too distracted by narratives as the suggesting there are viability issues with it far from it but it has to be judged in in the form of an asset that it is which is 15 year rental stream plus capital appreciation and at the end of that period the whole thing can be put onto the market and and and unsold off if the investor so so so requires so what I'm concerned about in this is that we don't set 20% as the the target and the the minimum the guidance is very clear that it's open to local negotiation for more than 20% and in the market of Greater Cambridge I think we should be able to negotiate that and a final point on bill to rent is that when it comes to the discount to market it should be discount to market rent not discount to market rent and service charge because in the wider market landlords only charge the rent they pick up the service charge costs so don't let the developers confuse us as to what the actual discount is the I've got one more point well two more points with a very quick one which is on when it's the social affordable housing mix and we know the demand is there for one two bedroom properties I don't think we should have them all in apartments there should be two bedroom houses so the people in the social rented sector do have access to their own front door their own back door and a garden so be lifetime tenants with families and I think that is the decent thing to do for people who are in the lower end of the housing themselves and so at the end of the housing housing market and there should be that option and that that choice and just picking up on Councillor Williams's point about that housing mix I think he's actually making a good point because what the diamond analysis says and Stephen Kelly can tell us a bit more about this if people aren't familiar with it which I think is a very detailed analysis of housing need in Greater Cambridgeshire is that we've got say generalized the right three categories we've got the the social affordable housing needs and then at the top end of the market we've got the four bed exact homes which the private sector love the most and then the mid market and it's perhaps the people who are in the lower end of the mid market who are facing between that choice of going into private rented or finding these starter homes these small smaller dwellings and it's therefore and there is a shortage in that market and from my reading of the analysis and I think we need to re look at that as Councillor Williams was suggesting because I think it needs to be maybe a strong supply to enable people to own their own home and become owner occupiers and if they're fortunate enough to staircase into a bigger into a bigger home if that's what they wish wish to do so I think that does need looking at again that's all thank you can I just follow on from that last point from Councillor Smith is is there's also a need for retired people to downsize I think particularly in the villages as well they they want to stay in their communities and as council Williams pointed out their their developers tend to build larger homes and there's definitely a need for the smaller homes and villages so Jenny could you pick up those thank you sorry chair we have a request from our Dem Services colleague if we can just pause proceedings for a second okay yeah please do continue thank you for your patience okay Jenny would you like to answer those questions thanks so from Councillor Sandford in terms of wheelchair user dwellings and whether we monitor specialist housing of that sort um we want we monitor the in terms of like the authority monitoring report that we publish every year we um we monitor what the current adopted policy is requiring so we kind of look at whether new homes that are permitted since the adoption of the plan are meeting the requirements um so we possibly so we wouldn't necessarily be picking up homes of that kind of standard have been lost because we're looking at new homes rather than kind of homes that have been lost that way that um in terms of councillors Smith's points were there any were there any questions specific questions or were they just comments sorry if I missed an I think there were comments okay thank you I've I've got a question we have a section on we we get planning applications for send genuine classification for accommodation which sort of apart hotels and they don't a lot of the housing policies don't seem to cover those is it possible that we can include policies to cover space standards accessibility and amenity spaces for apart hotels or anything else that may come through that we don't know about at the moment um I think one of the planning committees recently we thought the and for an apart hotel we were asking whether the um building regs mobility standards m5 which was for commercial buildings because this wasn't these were we were told this wasn't really residential but this kind of residential but it's a commercial development whether that could apply so I think the we don't know what's coming but under this section can we ask that housing policies apply and finally does anybody else want to come back in on any final questions or and I know we have Hilary Cox-Condren has has joined us um and as we wrap up this section if anyone else Hilary if you wanted to come in you can as well oh thank you I really have come in at the end of that so excuse me that I was just going to add to some questions about um I just wondered about homes for life and I don't know much about them at all except that somebody was the resident was asking me about them recently trying to find one so a home that can be adapted I'm sure that you know what it is and I didn't a home that can be adapted as you get older and space to be able to um yeah be able to adapt it as your needs change I wondered if that was so that's catapult thank you okay Jenny so in answer to your question I think we'd have to look into what we can specifically require in terms of the various homes policies or the various uh slightly different housing uses uh in the first proposals it does already try to say things like affordable housing where it the types of housing it wouldn't necessarily apply to like broadband sites or kind of certain sites where you wouldn't necessarily be able to provide affordable housing in quite the same way so you know kind of I think we need to take away that thought in terms of whether kind of a part hotel what of our housing policies could we realistically apply to things like a part hotel uh in terms of calps and the cox homes alive what we were talking about and I don't know whether you thought this bit in terms of um there's building regulation standards now for accessible and adaptable homes that effectively do the same thing as what might previously being called homes for life so they're about making sure that um homes are designed so that they can kind of be used accessibility by different kind of users with different needs but equally there's some that can be kind of have the ability to be further adapted at a later point easily so kind of having the whatever whatever's required for a lift to be put in at some later point and by having the right kind of frame in your building such that you can just slot it in at a later point rather than having to completely demolish kind of yeah exactly so apologies everybody yes there are uh home doors to require certain amounts of different types to meet that thank you yeah so that's all all new homes in the next local plan will be adaptable uh we will meet some kind of accessible or adaptable standard with some meeting higher higher levels okay so we finished this section so the the next section is another one on housing and then the third section will be well-being and social inclusion so if we could go on to the next housing section thanks okay that's myself I'm Mark D so I work with Jenny on the housing side so the first one I'm going to talk about is bill to rent again so alongside the general references with regard to affordable housing we're also proposing a specific policy on bill to rent which will set out the conditions whereby we will be looking to allow bill to rent the particular focus on trying to avoid over concentration of the tenure in specific local areas and as already been mentioned we would be looking at 20% affordable private rent as a minimum within these schemes generally there was support for the the overall approach based I think on recognition that they do form part of the housing mix and have a role to play in addressing housing need and providing choice but developers had two specific concerns with what we were proposing the first one was objecting to any kind of restriction or limit on the amount of bill to rent that would be allowed within a development and their second concern was that they wanted more flexibility to address viability and local circumstance issues next policy homes and multiple occupation so again we've set out an approach where we are really looking forward and proposing to bring forward the criteria based policy that we've already got in the adopted Cambridge local plan but apply it to the whole of greater Cambridge we actually had very few responses on this policy although despite that there was still no real consensus from the comments that we did get there was a recognition from some that HMOs do make contribution to the housing mix although there were some concerns about addressing quality of the HMOs but there was a kind of alternative view which was that HMOs can have a very negative effect on the character and social cohesion of neighbourhoods that we need to be be aware of can we go on to the next slide John Bruce is going to talk to our students yeah so the proposed policy approach for student accommodation support which we consulted upon in the first proposals supported the identified growth for student accommodation over the next 10 years it would support new purpose built student accommodation which would reduce the need for private accommodation existing student accommodation would continue to be protected and student accommodation will be counted towards overall housing need there was general support for the policy in terms of its location for new student accommodation site promoters requested the city centre be treated as a suitable appropriate location for new student accommodation the university of Cambridge did raise the issue about counting self-contained student accommodation towards housing overall housing requirements and Anglia Ruskin considered policy approach unduly restrictive towards individual sites requiring or required to remain in general current residential or student use despite both contributing towards overall housing requirements next slider thank you John sorry yeah again we are looking to carry forward an approach that we had in the South Cambridge adopted local plan here so it's all about the conditions that the criteria we would use in assessing whether dwellings outside of village frameworks would be allowed and it actually covers a number of different issues so we would be looking at replacement dwellings extensions to dwellings reuse of buildings for residential use dwellings to support global businesses and dwellings of exceptional quality and that each type would have its own criteria there was again general support for the approach some parish councils did suggest ways in which we could tighten up some of the criteria that we would use and historic England did have some concerns over reuse of buildings in the countryside and the need to consider the historic environment and heritage assets and you see the middle little point there we did have a specific point coming from an architectural practice around some technical wording changes they were seeking in the light of permitted development rights so I think we'll have to go away and look at in a bit more detail next one please John so residential moorings this one we are looking to carry forward the current criteria based approach in the Cambridge local plan but apply it to how to go at Cambridge there were very few comments on this one there were some comments from the Cambridge and South Cambridge green parties about need for better engagement and trying to provide more appropriate facilities with any moorings that do come forward add some concerns about quality of some existing moorings I think and then on residential caravan sites again the approach will attempt to set out the criteria we would use in assessing sites suitability for caravan use relative few comments the environment agency did highlight the importance of addressing flood risk here because of the vulnerability of caravans to flood threats and some specific comments from the Cambridge Gypsy and Romani Traveller Solidarity Network and the Cambridge and South Cam Green parties raised concerns regarding the sufficient provision of sites and the effective assessment of need but I think looking at those comments it would appear I think they were more focused on Gypsy and Traveller sites rather than caravan sites more generally although they did put their comments against this specific we'll see. John next slide please so on the Gypsy and Traveller and show people sites we will set out again criteria for how we will assess these sites it will also be based on the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment which will inform us as to how many sites we need we think we need to be planning for and there have been some problems with our study so we still don't have an up-to-date assessment of need in terms of the comments that we got there was I think generally a recognition that we do need to allocate a range of sites to address the housing need it seemed to be a little doubt that there would be some need when the study was finally published criticism that current policies weren't working as they have delivered too few sites since the sites needed to be of good quality with adequate access to services and facilities so it's not just about identifying you know any help be allowed we can find they've got got to be suitable sites and interestingly there was only one developer flagged any concerns about our proposal to potentially seek provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites within some of the major sites coming forward the last policy is community-led housing where again we will look to set out where we think community-led housing schemes would be applicable and the criteria we would use for assessing them there was general support for specific policy on community-led housing but it was stressed that it should be seen as a part of a broader package of affordable housing options and there were a couple of comments about relationship during community-led housing and exception sites one saying that community-led housing should be the preferred method of delivering exception sites and somebody else taking account of you that yes community housing is fine along with it doesn't get in the way of delivering rural exception sites so that's a quick one through the policies um thank you both uh for those for that um so some of the some of the questions and comments from the first section are actually relevant to this one so councillors please don't re-ask questions but officers please note the relevant questions from the previous section so councillors any discussion here sign councillor Smith you've still got your hand up do you want to come in first and then councillor Williams and then councillor Porra oh okay councillor Williams first please thank you very much chair um it's just two points actually the first one I better mention um I work for the university so I probably ought to declare an interest there given that the university's come up um although my point is not not really relevant to that I otherwise I just had a very short point um about the um feedback from parish councils about requiring rural developments to be next door to existing villages and not self-contained annexes I think that's a very good point a very important point um I think we know you know in a village setting they're not sustainable in the sense of being in the middle of a city but putting a development outside a village makes it even more unsustainable in terms of it makes people entirely reliant on um on cars for example um so um I think that that's a very important point and I would like to see that that taken forward councillor Porra and then we can have the questions from those two please thank you very much chair um talking of the built rent obviously I raised the 20 percent but I think the other thing we're going for 15 years covenant I must admit and it always says we're going to seek more that worries me I would rather we started with the higher level and then it was very much from the developers to negotiate down from that because in my fairly limited experience for three or four years it is very rare that we are successful in seeking higher so my view for both the built to rent percentage and the tenure is I think we should what our policies should ask for more because I do think we can evidence that from the demand and you know we have a lot of developments that build rent coming through we can see certainly in the city um for the HMOs definitely welcome the space standards um I think I would like to raise the Airbnb and other provider issue because obviously there's an HMO definition about you know people from multiple households but certainly in the city and I'm guessing from the comments in Southcams as well there's an issue of multiple occupation being repeated different families staying which is in my opinion quite detrimental to the housing stock and we currently don't really have any controls on this I mean one option would be a condition for new builds or conversions to have some kind of in effect permitted development rights removed so they'd have to come through planning or whether we could look at something like London City can't done where there's a limit to the number of days you can rent a full house out before it has to be require a change of youth commission because certainly for me that is quite an issue it's in because for these smaller houses with fewer than this sweet generous definition there is no control at the moment and whilst I respect if people want to have Airbnb that's fine and rent out your spare room or rent out your house but we do need to have some control about the comings and goings and the extra demands that puts as well as the issues for our housing stock so I'd welcome advice on that um I should declare as well I work for ARU I notice they've made a comment but um I'm not being involved in that at all it's not my area of work but just to make that declaration to be clear for the student accommodation can we be clear that when we talk about this we mean students we've had a cut well one that came to our city planning recently where there were a considerable number of staff houses which were counted or advised by our planning policy team that these counted as student so there was no sort of s106 obligations no school contributions so I would like us just to be very clear that this is student accommodation and I'd quite like a definition of students i.e postgraduate taught and research because obviously once we get towards postdocs and things like that I personally think most cases they would need to be accommodated within our normal policies so I would be grateful if officers might consider that and finally the GRT um policy Gypsy Roma Traveller it's a shame we haven't got the assessment of needs so I would welcome the chance to review that once we do have it because certainly we're not providing enough sites and there's certainly a real issue around the Biomed campus people wanting to visit the hospitals when they've got relatives there which is obviously there is nothing near there so understandably this can lead to some conflicts with people needing to stay near there but nowhere to park so I just I would wonder if the chair or someone might consider that we could review that when we have the gyatana results because I think that is really important thank you so we'll have if the officers could answer those questions before we go on thanks okay Bruce is there anything you want to say in the student accommodation yes so um in terms of um we are seeing now some of the colleges needing academic staff accommodation um and we've only had a couple of examples of this so as part of our engagement in the universities colleges we will be bottoming out what their actual needs are and the local plans should help cover this off normally they like the academic staff to actually use the accommodation for students so and at the moment we do restrict the access the the use of it through section 106 so it can't be treated as a residential um but I admit we perhaps need to have a bit more detail in the local plan equally we are now seeing a lot more demand for postgraduate accommodation and again we will be trying to firm up the needs of the universities the colleges and actually what that means and whether that actually includes post graduates with families and etc so um that is something we will be taking I will be taking up with the universities to try and flesh out that that's all I've got on the mark on the accommodation of the student accommodation okay thanks Bruce um I think most of the rest were more comments and questions but if I can just pick up on a couple of points um I think the point about the the bill to rent and the minimum 20 percent uh should be affordable I think it's a good point I mean it's clearly going to be up for discussion for a while yeah I think it's trying to work through how how we're going to deal with that but I think um Councillor Smith made a really important point earlier when he talked about um the level of discount as well because actually I think a lot of people would say a 20 percent discount on market houses in Cambridge is not particularly affordable and I think it was a concern that we maybe got a trade off here in that if we negotiate higher proportions of affordable housing within the schemes is that going to affect the the level of affordability so more affordable might mean lower discounts a lower proportion of affordable might mean you can negotiate a high discount on each one so I think there may be a trade-off we'll have to look at but yeah I haven't got an answer for you now but yes I mean I think point noted um the other thing I was just coming on very briefly you talked about um HMOs and the use of Airbnb's I think that is a really good point it's not something I've got you an answer but it's something I think quite like to go away and and I would think about because I don't know how would you deal with that but I do I do recognise the issue. Can I step in on that one Mark because we have got a policy uh in the jobs section on visitor accommodation and that certainly picks up um the types of accommodation where planning permission is required and I think that that's part of the issue we can obviously control through the local plan the issues that require permission and that policy approach which will come to a a future session coming your way um does very much look at what criteria we should apply to that type of application so it's not a forgotten issue but there's a limit to what we can do. Is that I think I think that's covered your points I just want to add one point to what uh Councillor Porra said about the student accommodation is that sometimes we found on a recent application that the accommodation was going to be used more of the time as a as um conferencing accommodation so it was only it was submitted a student accommodation but it was going to be used for like 52 percent of the time as conferencing accommodation and I we felt that that actually should be recognised in the application and it's commercial accommodation rather than student. So normally that would um be controlled through the section 106 Cascade and perhaps that's something we can I can have a chat with DM about refining that cascade um to the limited high percentage. I think the concern was it it was uh leads to is it uh student accommodation doesn't pay business rates but uh conferencing accommodation could so is that that it was a concern about that. I can take that up without the management colleagues. Yep so um I'm going to ask Councillor Shayla next as he's a member of the committee and then followed up with Councillor Fox-Condran. Hello it's um I've got a question about um some non-standard housing need that we we see around the city but first about density I do as sort of a thought experiment sometimes when I think about how big a building would you need to accommodate everybody in Cambridge in a single building and it you know it's about you know connecting people and all sorts of stuff so this is probably something about the next section but the and so sometimes this idea of density and absolute density it depends what that provides you know what kind of a quality of life you you get from that provision but the the question I have is about people who are living on narrow boats but also in um vans and and mobile homes and that sort of stuff while we are getting about canvassing we quite often find people and that this is obviously providing a housing need some of them are working in in NHS and and various other ways do we have to think about providing um better places for for these people as well. Thank you um um Councillor Fox-Condran do you want to come in now? Thank you very much I think that well no not a think I know that I'm just sort of adding to the conversation rather than asking a question here which was about the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller and Showman sites and just um just saying really that in my role at County as Vice-Chair of Community Social Mobility and Inclusion you know you mentioned the adequate services and facilities and just stressing how um you know keen we are to work collaboratively to ensure that that's being delivered well in everywhere obviously but um you know really keen to support that thank you. Thank you. Yep officers. Yeah can I just pick up um Councillor Shailers um comment about the different types of need the um it's called the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment but it's actually a little bit broader than that and it will actually cover residential moorings, residential caravans, travelling show people and Gypsy and Travellers though it will be addressing different types of need. I don't think you talked about was it I'm not sure if you mentioned is there any of the specific needs that you've got in mind um but there's kind of four groups there that the study will try and address. Yeah the some of these you know there's different levels of mobility some of them are really vans and then you know the whole idea of density of housing goes out the window doesn't it and but they need access to other facilities and space and other residents are worried about the the the parking provision and you know all of those various other problems. Yeah I mean certainly with with regard those different types of need they will have specific policies and criteria for assessing the sites so for example Gypsy and Traveller sites are very low density um and travel and travelling show people sites are even lower density because they have to have space to accommodate their yeah their attractions and things that they they take around with them so there are specific um criteria for those um yeah. Thank you. So what one of the issues we do need to pick up as we move towards draft plan is um how we deal with the need for Gypsy and Traveller and and other caravan accommodation um the there has been delays to the the need study but we are expecting to be able to get enough to take study we need to think about um how we meet that the need the the first proposals set out some criteria about how we might look at needing that need and that include looking for major developments but also what sort of criteria we might apply um in finding sites elsewhere and we'll need to look at um various sources of land as to how we identify that need which you know it's like to be a challenging issue but we are very much still aware of the need to address that issue as we go forward and very much aware of the need picking up on the points raised in the representations uh for that needs assessment work to engage uh with the relevant communities and make sure they have the chance to influence that work so it's very much still a very live and important issue for the plan. So Jonathan would that also include um the accommodation for homeless people that's been identified and certainly in Cambridge City with the the transition homes that are being provided? I don't believe it would pick up that issue specifically but I guess to reassure more generally we work really closely with the housing teams regarding uh the dealt with these policies and including um working with them as they develop updates for their housing strategies so we'll make sure that we pick up all the policy areas um you know that they think we need to cover in the plan but I'm not not sure it specifically picks up that one. Okay thank you I think we finished the out for two housing sections and we're about to start the well-being and social inclusion does anybody need a small break otherwise we'll move straight on thank you. Good evening everybody I'm conscious of time oh yeah did anybody want to cover the next steps for housing? I think John's covered some of them already. Okay bye okay. I do see and travel staff and basically it just sets out that we know we need to work out the fully formed versions of all the policies look at whether there's anything new up to date in terms of evidence have things changed in terms of national policy etc but I won't go on for any longer than that I'll let you move on to the next one. Thank you. Okay thank you I'm conscious of time so I'm just I'm going to prevent to present the first two policies then I'm going to hand over to my colleague Joanna Davis who will then hand over to my colleague Lizzie Wood so if we could go to the next slide John I'll start off with the first policy creating healthy new developments key issues raised so just to summarise in the first proposals this policy the intention is to integrate health considerations in the policies across the local plan such as requiring health impact assessments to accompany planning applications and to require healthy principles to be applied to new developments and also explore policies to restrict new local new hot food takeaway premises close to schools and leisure centres and limit the concentration of such premises in urban and rural centres for this policy there was general support with some comments explaining how policy should maximise well-being some suggested the HIAs the health impact assessments should only apply to major developments natural England suggested including links to accessible green infrastructure while the Cambridge cycling campaign supported the provision of integrated infrastructure the Cambridge and South Cambridge here Green Party supported interventions on takeaways in low-income communities involved with local businesses and producing healthy foods I appreciate this next slide please John okay and the second policy I'm presenting is the policy covering community sports and leisure facilities in new developments so the objective of this policy to set in the first proposals we proposed sets out what new community facilities including cultural education and leisure facilities should be provided along with health care and sports to be provided through a new development and the policy proposed will require appropriate community cultural educational sports leisure provision to meet the needs generated by new developments reviewing so the policy as you can see there are quite a few responses to this it's genuinely well supported however there were points particularly on specific sports facilities such as support for a new public swimming pool including cycling within a cycling distance of communities and existing provision is that capacity sporting that requested their active design to be referenced in their policy there were a couple of also specific requests from the Cambridge footsaw club with the support of the Cambridge Handball Club about the lack of a venue for that to support provision to host national indoor sports events the skate park representations requested more well-lit covered skate park areas so that it could be used throughout the year some promoters noted the need for a policy to set out how the new facilities will be sustained through new development so it's not just the completion of the new facility for how they'll be perhaps looked after and there's also clarification from site promoters about what is deemed appropriate and their thresholds for contributions and whether they should be on and off site also the education department to the county council did raise safeguarding concerns with facilities within schools used by members of the public so we need to consider how the access and management of these facilities for new facilities can be can be can be taken forward if they are to be dual use facilities and the Cambridge here in Peterborough clinical commissioning group requested policies to support plans of local health commissioners and provision of health facilities to meet population needs i'll now hand over to my colleague Joanna to cover the next two policies thank you so the meanwhile uses during long-term redevelopment policy would seek temporary uses on vacant sites and in underused buildings on major sites that are in the early stages of development before their permanent uses have been implemented it would also potentially cover existing buildings such as vacant shop units where there isn't an imminent prospect of a new occupant examples of meanwhile uses include things like community facilities creative work spaces temporary housing and pop-up shops in terms of the representations that we received there was general support for the policy although there and there were suggestions for potential suitable meanwhile uses including short-term medical uses that would be available to the early residents of any community affordable housing in vacant premises and potential skateboard facilities there was a couple of representations where that they suggested that meanwhile uses shouldn't be implemented in the green belt whilst consent for development was being sought in terms of the creating inclusive employment and business opportunities through new developments policy and the policy proposes that appropriately scaled developments would contribute to local training skills and employment opportunities examples of this could include the provision of apprenticeships work experience traineeships during the construction phase of a development the policy also seeks to provide access for local businesses to any procurement opportunities that are generated by the development in terms of the representations that were received there was some support for the policy from a range of different organizations with some suggestions for the detailed how the detailed policy should be developed including that it should apply only to larger developments that it should include flexibility in its application where appropriate and there are also some suggestions of the different types of skills and employment provision that it could cover there were some objections to the policy direction including from the home builders federation who suggested that it wasn't justified against the NPPF and SIL regulations and that there was existing work taking place through CITB in terms of providing skills and employment opportunities in construction thanks Joanna so I'm going to talk through the final two policies so thanks for sticking with us the proposed policy direction for pollution health and safety requires that the development does not lead to significant adverse effects as a result of noise vibration odor and or light pollution and this policy also includes how land contamination should be considered the reps raised the following points the environment agency suggested that policy should include protection of Cambridge's aquifers and should mitigate pollution from hazardous facilities the University of Cambridge suggested that the policy scope should protect the research environment particularly mitigating against electromagnetic interference and some parish councils suggested that pollution levels were unacceptable so we should monitor and mitigate those several developers objected to the policy arguing that potential negative impacts from development can be mitigated against and should be included in the policy text our next policy is a protection of public houses this was originally in the Great Places theme but we considered the public houses to be a player of an important role in the community resilience and contributing to local economy and supporting key immunity functions both in the city and rural areas we also thought that this policy proposed during social interaction and local community life and so probably wasn't best placed alongside other policies in the Great Places theme that have more of a design led approach and so the key points raised in the reps were general support for the policy and approach mainly from those parish councils who supported the positive impacts such as employment opportunities for the community and some comments suggested that the policies should allow for the loss of public houses if they're no longer viable and can no longer be supported by local communities and lastly Cambridge past present and future suggested that policy could safeguard public houses by nominating them as assets of community value other comments suggested that other community assets also need to be accounted for and safeguarded that aren't reflected in this policy and I think that leads us on to our next discussion thank you thank you very much if you'd like to any councillors would like to indicate whether they'd like to speak while you're thinking about that I'd just like to say that councillor Toomey Hawkins and I have raised several times about the need to consider facilities for older teenagers and young adults and I do I do think this section it has the is maybe the the least developed of all of the sections and I think there is still evidence to be gathered but one one point that we one point is that the older teenagers and young adults and I think maybe that's why skateboarding comes up quite often okay so councillor Dr Williams please thank you very much chair just just one point for me on on this and it's a very parochial south cams point although it is relevant to city but we really really really really really need to be encouraging and making provision for leisure facilities and swimming pool and public facilities in in in south cams people in south cams particularly in my area really entirely reliant on the city and what's provided by the city council in terms of you know publicly accessible swimming pools gyms that kind of thing now I don't want to just debate that here but if if if there are disincentives in place in the future to travel into the city by car we really are potentially going to be cutting people off from some pretty or disincentivising them from using some pretty vital health and well-being facilities so I think we really really need to grasp this and do something inside cams thank you councillor sandford police thank you chair a couple of things from me health impact assessment seems like some an idea but who would deliver it is there an independent body that is qualified to do the kind of assessment I was smiling at the comment about electromagnetic interference I think that was entered in the context of the large bridge radio telescopes protecting the research environment seems such a broad consideration I'm not sure how the planning committees are actually qualified to evaluate that kind of situation thank you perhaps we'll go on to Neil councillor shaler as well thank you chair this is it's an enormously broad subject isn't it and and about health and well-being and you have to get back to basics what what we need as human beings to have to have a purpose to be loved to to you know be surrounded and community building stuff and I wonder about allotments things like cofarm and places where people can interact with different levels of skills across generations the sort of thing you know we tend to be in single age class you know at schools and that sort of stuff but when it comes to actual longevity of communities it's about that intergenerational stuff but but also you know we've lost a lot of the music musical instrument choirs that that sort of thing you know where where does that fit into thing um mixed martial arts I was talking to somebody locally who was dealing with a lot of youth and he felt that he was keeping them away from knife crime by by you know and and there seems to be very little um for that particular section you know that the kind of transitional and but of course the gymnastics is ballet there's all kinds of things like this so and it depends on the on the site if you're near a river maybe rowing in kayaking and that sort of thing if you're near you know it has to be something more site specific but I'm very interested in the idea of 30-minute communities where you get most of what you need within walking distance of where you live and so this this is really um planning on a on community level if you like now councillor poro have you got many questions if you if's okay why don't you come in now to them yeah this is much briefer from me you'll be glad to know just quickly the pollution and health and safety should we include something there about wildlife corridors and light pollution I don't know whether it quite fits there but I am mindful that that is quite a big issue certainly in the city and I'm guessing out in south cams as well because that pollution can be that as well certainly absolutely agree with councillor Sorra about teenagers because we know we have a real deficit in that I'd almost wonder if officers could justify actually making that really clear in the policy that we particularly want things because obviously with community rooms you can provide nurseries and things for younger children but you know we do need teenage provision so I would welcome anything to make that stronger so that's clear and finally with public houses um you know we've dealt with that a bit in the city it would be I wonder if it's possible to put something as well about if a pub is being redeveloped so that there is support for the landlords to sort of make sure it's viable when you come back to it potentially because I think that's something that's possibly come up at city planning before where it would have been useful to have something there which just reminds developers that if they are redeveloping a pub which is great they're keeping it it's nice to make sure that the the existing landlord and ladies can come back thank you thank you hand over to the officer are we all done I'll start I'll start from the top so we are updating our sports our sports strategy to support the local plan so that's the playing pitch strategy and the indoor sports facility strategy and we're also commissioned an outdoor courts and rink strategy which perhaps picks up more of the minor minor sort of spaces which perhaps is not necessarily a focus for sport england and I am particularly conscious of playing for example the skateboarders wanting to have it and I mean I think in all our leisure sports open spaces we do really need to start looking at making these spaces usable throughout the year not just when it's fair weather clearly that's you know quite a big ass but it is on our radar of trying to make sure these spaces are a lot more usable and I'd like I mean those those documents are going to be fairly comprehensive and should be able to pick up and develop an action plan even for those minor sports where we're not sure how we can take them forward but if a development comes forward we can highlight there are perhaps a demand for these spaces even the the problem with the footsault is that the requirements are slightly bigger than your standard indoor sports facility so it takes we have to and there actually are quite large spaces but I know these sports strategies are fairly comprehensive and should pick up a lot of the sports for all ages but I'm you know clearly I can take back the fact that there's a you know need for older teenagers young adults how do we cater for that so if there's no further questions on that point in terms of health impact assessments from my my understanding is and correct me if I'm wrong Joanna that the there's a health team at South Cams who have experience of these health impact assessments and they assess these and feedback to the planning application process as to whether the HIA is satisfactory for the development is that correct Joanna yes that's correct yes okay I'll be honest I can't answer the question about electromagnetic and I will have to just pass that back to our respective environmental health colleagues as to how we can pick that up should we get an application for that so the broader subject of allotments and getting more people involved we are in discussions with the cities and South Cams communities and foreign teams about whether we can perhaps do something about allotments spaces and food growing areas that is a work in progress obviously there are budgets to discuss and I can see my boss John scratching his head already as as soon as I mention it but it is on our radar mixed martial arts well again that should really be picked up in the indoor sports facility strategy and it does do comprehensive consultation of all the clubs who are operating in the city in the South Cambridge year so I will just make a point of that for our consultants but normally they consult with all the clubs who use these spaces to find out what they need and the problems they've got or if they've got over capacity under capacity things like that so it is fairly comprehensive again I can from the pollution health that light pollution wildlife corridors I can feed that back to the relevant officers who at the city and South Cams who are looking at these matters so public houses well I think the idea is that if a public house use is to be retained but that involves some sort of development at the city we normally refer these matters to camera to basically say is this proposal realistic would you expect a landlord or a person to be able to inhabit it because we are aware of developers trying to redevelop a pub retaining the public house use but oh dear providing it in a way which actually is not really usable as a public house so we are aware of these and I do remind my colleagues at Development Management to make sure camera have a say on whether they think the public house in its new form mixed use is still a working option I think that covers off all your questions um is there any follow-up Councillor horror you want to come back just on that last one on the pubs I think my concern with what you're saying is brilliant it's the bit in between so whilst they're redeveloping is there any suggestion that for example some other provision could be made and then we could check with camera whether that's sufficient because obviously if you take a pub out of use for two years you know don't do it I was just wondering if that's possible I'd have to um yeah we'll have to I'm not sure the realistic because where would that be it couldn't be on the development site so unless there's like an adjacent site where there could be like a pop-up pub or something possibly I mean I can I can take it back and capture the poor and see what we can do with that in terms of temporary provision I think the other issue uh Councillor Thorbrough you mentioned you know this is perhaps the policy area that's not developed so much some of the others I think the slide we haven't shown probably don't need to was capturing really the work that we're doing to move this theme forward so um as Bruce mentioned various sports studies and so on and we are working with both councils um community teams looking at how we develop those health policies looking at issues like food growing and so on the issue we've got to balance to an extent is what is the role of the plan and what is the role of the the planning application process so we need to clearly set out the expectations that the plan has that sites need to achieve and we need to understand their impact on viability but at some extent when we get involved in these real details there matters that might be more poured over when you're dealing with a specific site think about some of those major sites we talked about the last session where you can really get into that detail so it's about making sure perhaps we've got the right hooks in the plan and thinking what level we need to do at the plan making level to make sure that those detail levels those discussions about those some of those very detailed points get picked up but I think we're aware members take you know this theme very serious and we will very much be looking to have a really you know robust set of policies to make sure those asks and we put on those developments but it it is a work in progress but to reassure you we are working on it can I come back on a couple of points one is is following on what you've just mentioned is the the next local plan is going to provide billion billions of pounds worth of development in this area economic opportunities and when you think about the impact of the the jobs and the homes when and you think about things like swimming pools as councillor Williams was mentioning when you look at the overall possibility of what could be delivered you it seems clear what might be some of the bigger things that we need in this whole area but it's how do you how do we actually split that up between the different developments to ensure that at the end we get what we need for the totality of things so and one of the another thing is hidden disabilities we get a lot of parents with children with hidden disabilities and and adults with hidden disabilities that are not really catered for I think primarily in playing facilities but it actually now through lessons from COVID I think there we know that there's what's happened that these spacing that has come through the distancing that we've done through COVID has actually been really helpful for people with hidden disabilities so I think there are there lessons from COVID that could help a proportion of our residents and it is so about the space that's needed and then finally what about little things like drinking fountains you know are there will there be place will we be going down to that kind of level to say every community centre needs a drinking tap drinking tap outside or you know in green spaces we need to you know toilets for public toilets to for I mean will it go will it go down to that kind of level eventually thank you Steven Kelly thanks Casey I mean I think the questions you raise there drill down to some wider considerations about how do how do the councils effectively ensure appropriate stewardship of places because historically local authority was responsible for paying for public toilets water fountains and all those kind of amenities both councils have in some cases parish councils have picked up the responsibility in parts of south Cambridgeshire for elements of that obviously the city continues to be the default provider in public spaces I think there are some quite challenging circumstances to do with the finances for local authorities about how far they can sustain those and maintain them but it is something that I suspect we will continue to explore as we look at some of the major strategic sites that come forwards because development community can certainly deliver those we only have to look at King's Cross to see how Argent are effectively providing all of those services as part of their project but it brings with that an acknowledgement that actually the occupiers of those developments need to pay for them ultimately through the charges or the lease arrangements and so on that exist and I think that's a conversation in terms of how we transport that thinking and those liabilities into the city and south Cambridgeshire areas because they're not concepts perhaps that we've embraced so far but I'm sure there are areas that we need to look at as we head forwards. Thank you very much I can't see any more hands up so I would just like to thank the officers for all of the work they've done to do with the consultate consultation and go wading through all the very very very many comments I think we I think they should be congratulated first in the consultation which has resulted in all the comments but there's so much work going through dealing with the comments and it's been a really really helpful session so thank you very very much if the if councillors think of any further comments that spring to mind that haven't you haven't raised please do contact the planning officers. Our next JLPag meeting is Monday the 13th of February I believe some time on so I shall close the meeting now and thank you