Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Joint Development Control Committee - Cambridge Fringes
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Committee noted the following amendment
presented in the amendment sheet:
A further plan has
been received which enables an amendment to condition 7 as follows:
The allocation of
visitor and permit holder’s car parking spaces along the access lane shall be
carried out in accordance with drawing NWC1-MOL-01-ZZZ-GF-DRG-AR-00065 PA01.
REASON: To ensure
that there are adequate parking spaces available for the uses proposed and in
the interests of vitality and viability of the local centre (NWCAAP policies
NW19 and NW21).
An additional
informative should be added to define the works included as ‘enabling works’.
‘For clarity,
piling (instalment of pile caps and ground beams) will be included under the
term ‘enabling works’ as described within the relevant conditions that are part
of this Reserved Matters Permission.
This is because
piling works in the instance of Lot 3, will not prejudice the discharge of
conditions worded as ‘prior to the commencement, except for enabling works.’
An amendment to
the wording within condition 2 (ii & iii), from parking courtyards to
residential courtyards for consistency with the application submission
documents.
Ms Topel (Applicant’s Representative)
addressed the Committee in support of the application.
The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report.
i.
Welcomed the design of the application.
ii.
Sought clarity over statements in the report about the site in relation
to the administrative boundary.
iii.
Key worker housing does not meet the usual requirements in terms of
clustering, but was acceptable due to special circumstances for the site.
iv.
Letter boxes and door bells needed to be accessible from the street.
v.
Expressed concern that people may park their cars in unsafe areas eg
pavements if there was inadequate (on street etc) provision of spaces. Suggest
carrots (incentives), not just sticks (ie lack of provision/enforcement) were
required to encourage people to switch from private cars to public transport,
walking or cycling to/from the site.
vi.
Expressed concern that the height of the building may create a wind
tunnel.
In response to Members’ questions the New
Neighbourhoods Development Manager, Principal Planner, Senior Sustainability
Officer and Senior Planning Officer said the following:
i.
The University’s site was spread
over an area within both City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council
boundaries. This particular site was within Cambridge City boundary.
ii.
Undertook
to clarify in future planning reports/maps where municipal boundaries lay, to
show if an application was within a particular council’s boundaries.
iii.
Referred
to conditions controlling car parking set out in the Officer’s report. Estate
management would monitor where people parked their cars, and were responsible
for taking enforcement action when cars were parked outside designated parking
areas.
iv.
The site
was supported through the City Council and University Key Workers Car parking
Strategies, plus the University’s Travel Plan. The site could be accessed by
private car plus cycle and public transport links. Various amenities and travel
plan measures (eg the car club) would be available in phase 1 of the
development to encourage people away from car usage. The number of car parking
spaces applied for, and use of car club would be monitored for future phases.
v.
All
residential units were expected to reach code level 5 and have adequate levels
of sunlight. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel comments on P63 & 64 of the
Officer’s report referred to the lowest performing units.
vi.
A small
number of apartments don’t achieve maximum code for sustainable homes day-lighting credits. In doing this those units still
obtain code level 5, with 157 of the units achieving the maximum 3 day-lighting
credits.
vii.
The design
aimed to balance attractiveness with features such as recessed windows to
minimise overheating. Windows would be chamfered to stop birds roosting in
them.
viii.
There was
no policy reason for JDCC to recommend a condition requiring external mail
boxes and door bells, therefore an informative had been suggested by officers.
JDCC Members asked for the informative listed on the amendment sheet to be
reworded to make it clear JDCC expected mail boxes and door bells to be
accessible.
ix.
The
different heights of buildings should not create a wind tunnel.
x.
Shared key
worker housing were duplex units split over two floors for communal living by
four individuals.
xi.
The term
“Faith Worker” was defined in the s106 agreement. On-site Faith Workers would
be located near to ‘customers’ and housed according to their needs ie as a
single person or family group.
xii.
The Key
Worker Strategy and University Housing Needs Study provided the evidence base
for housing need. The documents informed decisions for the site and were
available for inspection upon request.
The Committee:
Resolved
(unanimously) to grant the
reserved matters application for planning permission in accordance with the
officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and
subject to the conditions recommended by the officers with an additional
informative as set out below:
The mailboxes shown on drawing D-A-G100-RMA-P1
shall be laid out in accordance with the drawing. Any changes to these proposals will be
discussed with officers first and should there be any changes to this, then the
University should be clear on the means by which residents can obtain
information and external parties can deliver information about community events
or matters that may be of interest to residents in order to ensure that
residents are part of the community and the wider area. The Joint Development Control Committee
expressed a keen desire for the letterboxes to be externally accessible for the
above reasons and a dialogue will be maintained between the applicant and the
local authority relating to this matter through the established steering group
meetings.
Report author: Sophie Pain
Publication date: 07/04/2014
Date of decision: 19/03/2014
Decided at meeting: 19/03/2014 - Joint Development Control Committee - Cambridge Fringes
Accompanying Documents: