Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
77 19/0288/FUL - Development Land at 75 Cromwell Road PDF 327 KB
Minutes:
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).