Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
32 19/1168/OUT - Newbury Farm, Babraham Road PDF 672 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an outline application (all matters reserved except for means of
access in respect of junction arrangements onto Worts'
Causeway and Babraham Road).
The application
sought approval for erection of up to 230 residential dwellings and up to 400m2
(GIA) of non-residential floorspace within Use Classes A1/A3/A4/B1/D1, new
landscaping and public realm, car and cycle parking, infrastructure, other
associated works following the demolition of all existing buildings on the
site.
The Principal Planning Officer updated her report
to recommend a Clause 3 implementation period: Development should occur within
3 years of permission being granted.
Mr Hasselder (Applicant) addressed the Committee
in support of the application.
Councillor McGerty (Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Since
submitting an objection to this application, ward councillors had continued to
engage with both the applicant and the planning service.
ii.
Local
Schooling (Support):
a.
Had
recently been assured by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service that
Cambridgeshire County Council had committed to providing an additional year
group intake at Queen Edith’s Primary School as and when demand made that
necessary.
b.
As
previously acknowledged, the size of the developments at GB1 and GB2 combined
did not trigger the need for a new school. But without an undertaking to school
the anticipated 30 extra pupils per year group within a short cycle ride of
home, the developments fall down on their commitment to sustainability, as it
would potentially trigger a large number of additional car journeys.
iii.
Loss of
Biodiversity (Object):
a.
From the
outset, this development promised that building a mixture of new homes and
green open spaces on a formerly “monocultured” arable field, would allow for a
net gain in biodiversity. This had not been delivered.
b.
Expressed
concern that the council’s own Nature Conservation Officer “welcomes” the 18%
loss of onsite biodiversity (section 6.21, page 40) that would result from this
development. Did not think the council should welcome such as outcome. It was
far too easy to highlight the calculated net gain arising from financial
contributions to offsite locations while glossing over the failure to achieve
this where people will live.
c.
Questioned
the report’s conclusion on agenda page 66, of a 10% net gain in biodiversity
when including the offsite contributions. Urged the committee to request more
detail of how this was proposed to be achieved.
d.
Queried
what proportion of the £52k financial contribution was destined to be spent on
simply upgrading the car parks?
iv.
Usable
Open Space (Object):
a.
Urged
the committee to reject the current application on the grounds it was not
compatible with Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan. This was because the
majority of the area described as Informal Open Space, as defined in Appendix I
of the Cambridge Local Plan as “including recreation grounds, parks, natural
greenspaces” is formed from the gas safety easement zone which sits above the
high pressure gas main at the south east of the site. It would not be fully
accessible by the public nor usable in either a formal or informal manner.
Asked the committee to insist on clarification of exactly how the space above
this major safety hazard can and cannot be used by the public and decide if
this can reasonably be classified as Informal Open Space.
Councillor Kettel (Parish Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Expressed concern about site access from Wort’s
Causeway/Babraham Road due to heavy traffic levels.
The application would exacerbate congestion.
ii.
There was inadequate infrastructure in the local
area. The local school and doctor surgery would be affected by the development.
iii.
There was less open space in the area than the
application suggested. A busway was anticipated. Great Shelford would be
impacted by [southern] city development.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation requesting:
i.
Redrafting of the foul water
informative as a condition.
ii.
Condition 20 be re-worded to reference the 2020-2025 Water Resources Management Plan by Cambridge Water.
The amendments were carried
unanimously.
Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that a condition be included prioritising open space on
site.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for outline planning permission and access points in accordance
with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s
report, subject to:
i.
the prior completion of an
Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
ii.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
a. Condition
20 would be re-worded to reference the 2020-2025 Water
Resources Management Plan by Cambridge Water
[delegated authority given to Officers to draft the wording];
iii.
the following additional
conditions, with delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions in
consultation with the Chair and Spokes:
a. Clause
3 implementation period: Development should occur within 3 years of permission
being granted;
b. Redrafting
of the foul water informative as a condition;
c. A
condition prioritising open space on site.