Issue - meetings

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.