URL: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5678

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: To note the report.

Content: Matter for Decision The report updated Members of Strategy and Resources Committee on the recent developments with Central Governments project for the growth of Cambridge.   Decision of Leader Noted the update on the progress of the Cambridge Delivery Company implementation.   Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report.   Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected See Officer’s report.   Scrutiny Considerations The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of Planning.   The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:       i.          Ministers were visiting other parts of the city, not just Cambridge City Council. This needed public scrutiny. Ministers appeared able to change housing delivery figure targets for the City Council to deliver. Ministers should be invited to visit the City Council to hear the views of local Councillors on the practicalities of delivery.      ii.          Queried if more power would be given to Mayors in future which would take planning decisions away from the City Council?    iii.          There appeared to be two rival processes described in the Officer’s report: a.    The Local Plan developed through the joint planning service. b.    Central Government ambitions for Cambridge City. c.    Appropriate infrastructure was required to deliver proposed housing.   The Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions:       i.          The Cambridge Growth Company had established an Advisory Council. Quarterly updates could be provided to Cambridge City Council Committee(s). These were process discussions that were outside public scrutiny as occurred with some City Council processes.      ii.          Ministers were visiting other parts of the city, not just Cambridge City Council, about issues that could affect the Council eg water. The city was the focus of ministerial attention.   The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said water scarcity was a known issue in the east of England so this would affect Local Plan housing figures that could be delivered. If Central Government wanted more housing than was listed in the Local Plan they would need to put in substantial resources to deliver extra housing. The speculative figures mentioned in the media could not be delivered without supporting infrastructure.      iii.          Would ask Peter Freeman to attend future Cambridge City Council committee meetings.   The Joint Director of Planning said the following in response to Members’ questions:       i.          Referred to P87 of the agenda pack. Officers were seeking clarification regarding the relationship between the Local Plan (as a statutory development plan) and Central Government ambitions from Central Government and the Cambridge Growth Company.      ii.          The Local Plan was the foundation for future growth and had prominence through legislation.    iii.          The Joint Local Plan was in place until 2045. The Cambridge Delivery Company should accelerate the delivery of planned growth strategies.    iv.          The planning phase to deliver appropriate infrastructure for housing should conclude by spring 2026. Separately the Council would consult on various strategies such as transport. Details would be confirmed in future. Separately, the Combined Authority was also undertaking some consultation to conclude by 2026.     v.          Ministers had mentioned housing targets in the media eg 150,000 but there was no set amount in plans. The City Council followed a set process for developing the Local Plan as set out in law. The Cambridge Development Company had a different type of plan and processes. It was not a ‘plan’ in the same way as the City Council Local Plan.    vi.          The Cambridge Delivery Company had no statutory role so could not supersede the Local Plan. They had to follow the Local Plan unless there were exceptions such as Ministerial guidance.  vii.          The relationship between the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s Spatial Development Strategy and City Council’s Local Plan was set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and subsequent amendments). The Local Plan set out allocated sites for housing. viii.          The whole country had infrastructure stress. This was an opportunity to improve infrastructure in the Greater Cambridge area and make the case for need to the Treasury as part of delivering housing. This would show what could be delivered over and above the Local Plan if appropriate resources were in place.    ix.          Robust policies were in place to manage water supply, the challenge was to deliver.   The Committee resolved nem con to endorse the recommendation.   The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.   Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.  

Date of Decision: March 31, 2025