Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
Search representations
Results for East Cambs District Council search
New searchComment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
S/DS: Development strategy
Representation ID: 59859
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: East Cambs District Council
Overall, ECDC has no objections to raise at this stage.
In particular, ECDC notes that there are no additional (i.e. ‘new’) major development proposals close to the border with East Cambridgeshire; and where major new allocations are proposed within your plan area, there appears no immediate or obvious significant ‘cross-border’ implications of relevance to East Cambridgeshire arising from them
On behalf of ECDC, and as an officer-level representation only, I have undertaken a high level review of your emerging Local Plan. I also had the benefit of the virtual meeting on 30 November, where you kindly outlined some of the key issues of your emerging Plan.
Overall, ECDC has no objections to raise at this stage.
In particular, ECDC notes that there are no additional (i.e. ‘new’) major development proposals close to the border with East Cambridgeshire; and where major new allocations are proposed within your plan area, there appears no immediate or obvious significant ‘cross-border’ implications of relevance to East Cambridgeshire arising from them.
Our only area of comment relates to the scale of job growth and housing requirement proposed (the latter being dependent on the former, rather than being dependent on using the national standard method minimum derived figure). As the Plan progresses, and through on-going duty to cooperate conversations (and associated Statement of Common Ground), ECDC will want to be satisfied that the evidence behind the balance between jobs and homes growth is sufficiently robust, and that (and of more importance to ECDC) appropriate mechanisms are in place in the Plan to ensure that the Plan can react positively should the growth in jobs and/or homes not occur as forecast (whether faster or slower than forecast).
To put it another way, ECDC may have concerns if, over the coming years, new homes considerably exceeded job growth, or job growth considerably exceeded new homes. Under such scenarios, there could be ‘spill over’ effects on East Cambridgeshire, hence the need for the plan to have mechanisms in place to actively ‘plan, monitor and manage’ for these potential eventualities.
Over the coming months, I would encourage continued conversations on this issue in particular, prior to your final ‘reg 19’ consultation stage.
Finally, on wider matters, ECDC is particularly interested in continuing to work closely with you on the aspects in your Plan relating to climate change and the natural environment, recognising that these matters are clearly ones that will require cooperation and shared learning across all organisations and administrative areas. In principle, the proposals you outline in your Plan on these matters are welcomed, and we would be happy to assist with your evidence base on these matters should you find that helpful.
Regards
Richard Kay
Strategic Planning Manager
Comment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
S/JH: New jobs and homes
Representation ID: 59860
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: East Cambs District Council
Our only area of comment relates to the scale of job growth and housing requirement proposed (the latter being dependent on the former, rather than being dependent on using the national standard method minimum derived figure). As the Plan progresses, and through on-going duty to cooperate conversations (and associated Statement of Common Ground), ECDC will want to be satisfied that the evidence behind the balance between jobs and homes growth is sufficiently robust, and that (and of more importance to ECDC) appropriate mechanisms are in place in the Plan to ensure that the Plan can react positively should the growth in jobs and/or homes not occur as forecast (whether faster or slower than forecast).
To put it another way, ECDC may have concerns if, over the coming years, new homes considerably exceeded job growth, or job growth considerably exceeded new homes. Under such scenarios, there could be ‘spill over’ effects on East Cambridgeshire, hence the need for the plan to have mechanisms in place to actively ‘plan, monitor and manage’ for these potential eventualities.
Over the coming months, I would encourage continued conversations on this issue in particular, prior to your final ‘reg 19’ consultation stage.
On behalf of ECDC, and as an officer-level representation only, I have undertaken a high level review of your emerging Local Plan. I also had the benefit of the virtual meeting on 30 November, where you kindly outlined some of the key issues of your emerging Plan.
Overall, ECDC has no objections to raise at this stage.
In particular, ECDC notes that there are no additional (i.e. ‘new’) major development proposals close to the border with East Cambridgeshire; and where major new allocations are proposed within your plan area, there appears no immediate or obvious significant ‘cross-border’ implications of relevance to East Cambridgeshire arising from them.
Our only area of comment relates to the scale of job growth and housing requirement proposed (the latter being dependent on the former, rather than being dependent on using the national standard method minimum derived figure). As the Plan progresses, and through on-going duty to cooperate conversations (and associated Statement of Common Ground), ECDC will want to be satisfied that the evidence behind the balance between jobs and homes growth is sufficiently robust, and that (and of more importance to ECDC) appropriate mechanisms are in place in the Plan to ensure that the Plan can react positively should the growth in jobs and/or homes not occur as forecast (whether faster or slower than forecast).
To put it another way, ECDC may have concerns if, over the coming years, new homes considerably exceeded job growth, or job growth considerably exceeded new homes. Under such scenarios, there could be ‘spill over’ effects on East Cambridgeshire, hence the need for the plan to have mechanisms in place to actively ‘plan, monitor and manage’ for these potential eventualities.
Over the coming months, I would encourage continued conversations on this issue in particular, prior to your final ‘reg 19’ consultation stage.
Finally, on wider matters, ECDC is particularly interested in continuing to work closely with you on the aspects in your Plan relating to climate change and the natural environment, recognising that these matters are clearly ones that will require cooperation and shared learning across all organisations and administrative areas. In principle, the proposals you outline in your Plan on these matters are welcomed, and we would be happy to assist with your evidence base on these matters should you find that helpful.
Regards
Richard Kay
Strategic Planning Manager
Comment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
Climate change
Representation ID: 59861
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: East Cambs District Council
ECDC is particularly interested in continuing to work closely with you on the aspects in your Plan relating to climate change and the natural environment, recognising that these matters are clearly ones that will require cooperation and shared learning across all organisations and administrative areas. In principle, the proposals you outline in your Plan on these matters are welcomed, and we would be happy to assist with your evidence base on these matters should you find that helpful.
On behalf of ECDC, and as an officer-level representation only, I have undertaken a high level review of your emerging Local Plan. I also had the benefit of the virtual meeting on 30 November, where you kindly outlined some of the key issues of your emerging Plan.
Overall, ECDC has no objections to raise at this stage.
In particular, ECDC notes that there are no additional (i.e. ‘new’) major development proposals close to the border with East Cambridgeshire; and where major new allocations are proposed within your plan area, there appears no immediate or obvious significant ‘cross-border’ implications of relevance to East Cambridgeshire arising from them.
Our only area of comment relates to the scale of job growth and housing requirement proposed (the latter being dependent on the former, rather than being dependent on using the national standard method minimum derived figure). As the Plan progresses, and through on-going duty to cooperate conversations (and associated Statement of Common Ground), ECDC will want to be satisfied that the evidence behind the balance between jobs and homes growth is sufficiently robust, and that (and of more importance to ECDC) appropriate mechanisms are in place in the Plan to ensure that the Plan can react positively should the growth in jobs and/or homes not occur as forecast (whether faster or slower than forecast).
To put it another way, ECDC may have concerns if, over the coming years, new homes considerably exceeded job growth, or job growth considerably exceeded new homes. Under such scenarios, there could be ‘spill over’ effects on East Cambridgeshire, hence the need for the plan to have mechanisms in place to actively ‘plan, monitor and manage’ for these potential eventualities.
Over the coming months, I would encourage continued conversations on this issue in particular, prior to your final ‘reg 19’ consultation stage.
Finally, on wider matters, ECDC is particularly interested in continuing to work closely with you on the aspects in your Plan relating to climate change and the natural environment, recognising that these matters are clearly ones that will require cooperation and shared learning across all organisations and administrative areas. In principle, the proposals you outline in your Plan on these matters are welcomed, and we would be happy to assist with your evidence base on these matters should you find that helpful.
Regards
Richard Kay
Strategic Planning Manager