Decision details

The Committee received an application for consent for demolition.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing depot building and redevelopment of site to provide: 43 residential units (comprising 18 2-3 bed houses, 6 2-3 bed coach houses and 19 1-2 bed flats), public open space including a play area, and associated works including landscaping, new access and parking.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to applications 11/1294/FUL & 11/1295/FUL from Mr Leigh & Dr Scholfield both representing local residents. Their representations are listed under 11/1294/FUL.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

     i.        Expressed concern regarding lack of information concerning the south side of the development. Plans omitted trees line information.

    ii.        Concern expressed at the loss of mature trees to the area and believed that that many of the trees could be retained by thinning.

   iii.        Requested that the trees should be resurveyed after the removal of the concrete.

  iv.        Questioned whether the proposed width of the tree belt was deemed to be sustainable and stated the retention of the original belt should be kept.

   v.        Would add to the strain of parking in the area.

  vi.        Incorrect measurements shown at the entrance of Angus Close.

 vii.        Narrow access to Devonshire Close which would create a safety concern.

viii.        Access to the main site or the Chisholm Trail would be through a private development that had been partly adopted, that allowed restricted access to resident parking.

  ix.        Reassurance required that the Angus Close would not be used as part of the Chisholm Trail or would be used as the access road to Travis Perkin.

   x.        Lack of public open spaces on the development

 

Mr Mark Mann (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

County Councillor Walsh, (Petersfield Ward) addressed the Committee about the application with the following comments;

 

       i.         Queried if the Member’s briefing held earlier at 9.15am, as part of the planning of the process should have been extended to other interested parties.

      ii.        The proposed development has a distinct lack of affordable housing, tree provision, open spaces and cycle provision.

     iii.        The quality of architecture does not reflect the general quality of the area.

    iv.        No evidence to support the quoted 65% reduction in Travis Perkins traffic level reductions referenced in the Officer’s report.

     v.        Stated that access should be provided to the Chisholm Trail that is through a private road.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the application be deferred to the 7^th of August Planning Committee so that a full site survey should be undertaken which would determine the viability of affordable housing on the development.

 

This amendment was lost by 4 votes to 3, with 1 abstention.

 

The Committee:

 

Recommendation A - Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on Chair’s casting vote) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda, subject to completion of s106 Agreement.

 

Recommendation B – Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation that further information to be brought to August Planning Committee regarding options for provision of affordable housing.

 

Reasons for Approval

1.      This development has been approved subject to conditions and the prior completion of a s106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1, P9/8 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/6, 3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 4/4, 4/11, 4/13, 5/1, 5/5

 

2.      The decision has been made having had regard to all other material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.

 

3.      In reaching this decision the local planning authority has acted on guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 186 and 187. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to bring forward a high quality development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

 

These reasons for approval can be a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision please see the officer report online at www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between Mon 8am - 5:15pm, Tues, Thurs & Fri 9am - 5:15pm, Weds 9am - 6pm.

 

Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by 31st December 2013, or if Committee determine that the application be refused against officer recommendation of approval, it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason(s):

 

The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, education and life-long learning facilities, transport mitigation measures, affordable housing, public realm improvements, public art, waste facilities, waste management and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/5, 5/14, 8/3 and 10/1, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2008, the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010, the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010, the Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2002, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012

 

In the event that an appeal is lodged against a decision to refuse this application, DELEGATED AUTHORITY is given to Officers to complete a section 106 agreement on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy.