Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 295 dwellings including 40% affordable housing; a nursery and community facility (D1), access, car and cycle parking, including basement car park, play equipment and landscaping, substation and associated works.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from two residents of Cromwell Road.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          The area needed housing.

     ii.          Expressed concern regarding the size of the development and the stress it would place on local infrastructure.

a.    Would exacerbate existing traffic flow and access issues.

b.    Impact on demand for local GP surgery services.

   iii.          Proposed development would impact on existing neighbours:

a.    Overlooking homes and gardens.

b.    Overbearing.

c.    Loss of light.

   iv.          Queried if the boundary wall would be removed between proposed and existing properties. Plans were unclear. Requested the wall be retained.

    v.          Suggested the plans were inaccurate and did not reflect reality. Nor did the model available for inspection by members of the committee and public.

 

Mr Belton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

       i.          The application was a vital part of the City Council’s scheme to provide affordable housing for residents.

     ii.          The site had been purchased on the open market, but the City Council was still able to provide affordable housing as it was designed in.

   iii.          Open space was provided because of underground parking facilities which freed up space for housing and open areas at ground level.

   iv.          The intention was to be an exemplar site.

    v.          The site was a commercial depot for Ridgeon’s, it could now be used for housing so neighbouring residents should experience similar or fewer traffic levels to what they were used to.

 

The Committee adjourned 11:55am until noon to view a model of the proposed development. The Principal Planner said the model was a representation and did not have the same weight as the plans and drawings which accompany the application.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include hedgehog friendly fences to be included in condition 32. (Suggested to Principal Planner pre-committee).

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved 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 plus amended condition.

 

Condition 32 should now read as follows:

 

No development above ground level shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, type of boundary treatments to be erected and provision for hedgehog dispersal.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced and retained thereafter.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

         

          Reason: To ensure an appropriate boundary treatment is implemented (Cambridge Local Plan 2018; Policies 55, 57 and 59).