Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed used development comprising 84 dwellings, circa 152m2 A1-A3 commercial space, and associated access, car and cycle parking, and public realm enhancement

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the amended recommendation and the amended conditions contained within the Amendment Sheet.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Representative on behalf of 20 residents of Severn Place.

·        Representative of Cambridge Cycling Campaign

 

The Representative on behalf of 20 residents of Severn Place covered the following issues:

     i.        Negative impact on the well-being of the residents of Severn Place.

    ii.        Unbroken line of brick height.

   iii.        Development would create the feeling of imprisonment.

  iv.        Shadow surveys did not bear well for Severn Place.

   v.        Disabled guests would have to park in the car park.

  vi.        No parking for occupiers.

 vii.        Site visit was recommended before members made a decision.

 

The Representative on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign covered the following issues:

    i.          The development did not conform with the Council’s supplementary planning document.

  ii.          The Wests Garage planning application contributed £120,000 in s106 contributions, questioned why this proposed development did not have to provide the same level of contributions.

 iii.          Transport assessment contained inconsistencies.

iv.          Vehicle junctions needed to be re-worked.

  v.          Asked members to refuse the application.

 

Geraint John (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor), Councillor Gillespie (Market Ward Councillor) and Councillor Price (Executive Councillor for Housing) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

Councillor Bick’s representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Expressed concern that the development did not provide 40% affordable housing provision.

    ii.        The 40% affordable housing provision policy was based on an established need and was contained within the local plan.  The Council should not abandon this commitment.

   iii.        Central Government had made development easier for developers although they still had to prove their viability case.

  iv.        Questioned whether the case for viability had been proven.

   v.        Requested that if the application was approved that a claw back provision was included in a s106 planning agreement.

  vi.        Requested that a stand was made regarding affordable housing provision.

 

Councillor Gillespie’s representation covered the following issues:

 

    i.          Agreed with the points made by Councillor Bick.

  ii.          Did not accept the viability assessment, affordable housing was needed in the City.

 iii.          Did not like 8 storey buildings and did not want the skyline to be full of buildings, he wanted to be able to see the sky.

iv.          Additional traffic would be a problem.

  v.          Reliance on cars took a step back from the Council commitment made at the Full Council meeting in October 2015.

 

Councillor Price’s representation covered the following issues:

    i.          Viability issues had been raised by Councillor Bick.

  ii.          Block H had a dominant presence; the affordable housing did not appear to be tenure blind.

 iii.          Unacceptable that Block H did not benefit from combined power.

iv.          Questioned whether Block H had photo voltaic cells.

  v.          Questioned the parking arrangements for Block H.

vi.          The Housing Allocations Policy meant that flats could not be under-occupied therefore children would live in the flats and there was insufficient play area provision.

vii.          Cambridge was low risk for sales of properties; many properties were sold off plan. 

viii.          A reduction in the provision of affordable housing was not acceptable given the pressure already on affordable housing.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an additional condition to the Officer’s recommendation that the materials used on Block H were to be of a similar quality and design as those used for the rest of the development.

 

The Committee agreed to accept the addition of this condition to the recommendation.

 

The Committee voted that they were minded to go against the Officer’s recommendation (and therefore refuse the application) by 6 votes to 1.

 

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee of the Adjourned Decision Making Protocol.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved not to accept the officer recommendation of approval, as the committee were minded to refuse the application, a decision on whether to approve or refuse the application was subsequently deferred under the Adjourned Decision Protocol

  

Under the Council’s agreed Adjourned Decisions Protocol this application will be brought back to a future meeting of the Committee to allow further discussion of reasons for refusal.  The following matters may form the basis for detailed reasons for refusal.

 

1.    The affordable housing block is by virtue of its external treatment which contrasts with the rest of the development, not ‘tenure blind’.

2.   Lack of amenity space/ play space to serve the affordable housing units and the development more generally.

3.   The height of Block G in the context of the height of surrounding buildings.

4.   The scheme does not deliver 40% affordable housing.

5.   That the renewable energy provisions do not extend to the affordable housing units.

6.   That the development is contrary to the Eastern Gateway Supplementary Planning Document on the basis that it does not provide ‘connectivity’ with the surrounding parts to the SPD area. 

 

The Officer recommendation of approval was subject to the completion of a section 106 Agreement to secure off site mitigation of development impacts.  In the event of a refusal of planning permission, a refusal reason to the lack of a legal agreement to secure these mitigation measures will also be recommended.