Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
60 17/2245/FUL - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 611 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the erection of 182 dwellings (including50% affordable housing), 51sqm of floor-space consisting of Use Class B1 (Business) or D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) - in the alternative, basement car park (101 spaces), surface water pumping station, open space (including play area), alterations to the junction with Mill Road, together with associated external works including cycle parking and landscaping.
The Principal Planner referred to the amendments contained within the
amendment sheet and also updated the Committee on the following issue:
i.
The Lead Local Flood Authority commented that the
scheme was unacceptable for reasons set out in original consultation response
and because the
The City Development Manager updated the Committee on the following
issues:
i.
The County Council Transport Assessment Team
accepted the issue with car parking trips associated with the scheme and asked
for the travel monitoring plan to be extended from 5 to 10 years. The trip
rates were acceptable for affordable housing. The travel plan would be secured
through a s106 agreement.
ii.
The County Council had requested that the Chisholm
Trail element of the application was physically provided on site and a
contribution of £190,847 provided. Delegated powers to progress this were also
requested.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following:
·
Residents of Kingston Street
·
Representative of Petersfield Area Community
Trust
·
Residents of Golding
Road
The representations made by residents of Kingston Street covered the
following issues:
i.
Supported the principle of
development but building B09 remained of significant concern, it had 3 storeys
and the Supplementary Planning Guidance provided for a tight 2 storey boundary
for the site.
ii.
The scale and mass of building B09
affected their residential amenity.
iii.
A statement building could be
provided in a different way through public art or the Kingston Mews houses
could be extended by another house.
iv.
The ground floor of building B09
was too small for a community use.
v.
Requested that building B09 was
removed from the development.
vi.
If building B09 was not removed
requested that the hours of use was reduced and no music could be played in the
building.
vii.
Expressed concern regarding the
site access junction and commented that the junction analysis was not good.
The representation by the representative of Petersfield Area Community
Trust covered the following issues:
i.
Expressed concern regarding
traffic and the open space.
ii.
Requested replacement facilities
for existing users of the site particularly the Cambridge Women’s Resource Centre.
The representations by residents of Golding Road covered the following
issues:
i.
Commented that the application was
premature as a second planning application was to follow for the site which had
the library on it.
ii.
Felt the community was being let
down as the whole site was not being considered under one planning application.
iii.
Had requested further information
on the access off Mill Road and had not been provided with it.
iv.
Referred to draft local plan
policy 23 which required regard to be had to listed buildings and commented
that the application did not comply with policy.
v.
Commented that the Mill Road
access did not make provision for local plan policy 23.
vi.
Referred to s66 of the Planning
(Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
vii.
Commented that there was no
provision for disabled parking.
viii.
The Chisholm Trail was a transport
use and this land should not be included within the public open space
calculation.
Andy Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application.
Councillor Price
(Executive Councillor for Housing) addressed the committee and raised the
following points:
i.
This was the first major scheme to build council
housing following the devolution funding scheme.
ii.
The application provided 10% affordable housing
above the local plan requirements and would provide much needed social rent
housing.
iii.
There were 2500 individuals in housing need
awaiting accommodation.
iv.
Needed to keep people on low incomes living in the
city.
v.
The site was a major brownfield site in the city.
vi.
The application sought to deliver high quality
housing and maximise the provision of private and social rented homes.
vii.
Requested that the application was not deferred as
it would lead to a delay in the delivery of affordable housing and commented
that there had been extensive consultation with many of the comments being
incorporated into the application.
Councillor Baigent
(Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and
raised the following points:
i.
Fully supported the application and had been
involved with the application since the project began.
ii.
Commented that to provide 182 homes had required an
air of realism.
The Director of
Planning and Economic Development and the Legal Advisor gave advice on the
status of the Mill Road Supplementary Planning Document.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to grant the
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 and the amendments contained
in the amendment sheet.
Chair and Spokes
of the Committee to be notified of the detail of community facility obligations contained in
the s106 agreement.