Decision details

The Committee received a reserved matters application (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to 11/1402/S73 for the community centre and nursery, alongside a pedestrianized Community Square, with cycle parking, landscaping, utilities and associated ancillary structures.

The Committee noted the following amendment presented in the amendment sheet.

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.

Ms Topel (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to the report the Committee commented the tower would be a landmark building and so needed to be attractive.

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Design & Conservation Manager and Senior Planning Officer said the following:

       i.          The eastern elevation tower CGI was not the best drawing to show the building’s features.

There was detailing in the brick work to soften its features and make the building look interesting. The design aimed to balance functionality, sustainability and attractiveness.

     ii.          Conditions were in place to control materials. High quality materials were required for the design.

   iii.          Car parking provision should be sufficient on site. There would be a local car parking pool that could be used at different times by different facilities (eg shops and community centres) as they would be open at different times.

   iv.          319 car parking spaces across all the local centre uses is deemed appropriate through the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan (NWCAAP) standards, this was reduced to 304 when it was felt appropriate that the number of spaces could be rationalised by sharing them between different local centres.

    v.          There is no separation between visitor and staff spaces in the NWCAAP standards.

   vi.          Car parking provision was based on expected ‘normal’ not ‘exceptional’ use. Officers were looking to see if primary school parking could be used out of hours for exceptional events.

 vii.          Good public transport links should help mitigate car parking issues.

viii.          Community centres were intended for multi-use through their general design. Faith Workers etc could then use the buildings when they required.

   ix.          The community square was a mixed use area for pedestrians and cyclists. It included raised areas for socialising on the outer edges away from the shared surface.

    x.          The ridgeway provided a cycle route from Storey’s Way through Market Square and towards Girton. Trees and street furniture near the community square were deliberately positioned to highlight to cyclists that they were approaching a shared area and encourage slower speeds before entering the mixed use community square. This design had been used on the continent and evidenced showed it worked i.e. was safe for all users.

   xi.          Lot 7 buildings included parapets to mask photovoltaic panels and other ‘plant’ features.

 xii.          Public art was not included in Lot 7, but would be available on the wider site (eg part of market square within Lot 2). The Public Art Strategy was running in parallel with the overall site development. Public art details would be submitted to JDCC.

xiii.          All local centres’ car parking needs were reviewed in-line with car parking standards. Officers reviewed which facilities could share spaces and expected visitor types eg emergency services and shoppers. Officers were confident there was adequate car parking provision in-line with parking standards.

xiv.          Paragraph 8.66 (agenda P86) may unintentionally confuse bird names. However, the Ecology Officer was happy birds referred to in the report would be attracted to the locations indicated.

The Senior Planning Officer undertook to review references to birds in paragraph 8.66.

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.