Issue - meetings

The Committee received an outline application (all matters reserved except for means of access) for the erection of up to 200 residential dwellings, with associated infrastructure works, including access (vehicular, pedestrian and cycle), drainage, public open space, and landscape.

 

The Principal Planner referred to details on the amendment sheet as part of their officer presentation.

 

The Principal Planner updated her report to recommend removing Condition 1.

 

The Committee received a number of representations in objection to the application:

 

Representation from a Camcycle representative:

      i.          This application was completely unacceptable as it lacked basic connectivity for walking and cycling to and from schools and community amenities. This would badly affect not only this generation but future ones too.

     ii.          The site is only 300 metres away from the Netherhall School open space, but schoolchildren will have to trek a very long and circuitous route to get there: almost 2 kilometres. Distance was the single biggest factor in people's choice of transport mode. The long routes were also dependent on a narrow and decrepit cut-through that was unsuitable for its existing use, much less hundreds of additional families. It was likely that many new residents would turn to driving instead of walking or cycling to everyday destinations.

   iii.          Policy 80 states that developments should be 'conveniently linked with the surrounding walking and cycling networks' Policy 81 states that developers were required to make investments to encourage the use of sustainable transport, including infrastructure.

   iv.          Paragraphs 3.1.3 and 3.5.1 of LTN 1/20 state that there should be a 'densely spaced cycle network' with '250m - 400m' between routes 'so that all people can easily travel by cycle for trips within and between neighbourhoods'. There was over 1 kilometre of site perimeter with no route and even worse it lacked a cycle route on the strongest desire line.

    v.          Establishing a direct walking and cycling link from the development to Almoners' Avenue and/or Beaumont Road is the lynchpin of this application. The existing estate was specifically designed for expansion at these points. A weak planning condition that allows the applicants to say 'they tried and gave up' is an abdication of the city's responsibility to its future residents.

   vi.          The lack of basic connectivity was a strong reason to reject this application under policies 80, 81 and LTN 1/20. Asked the committee to require the applicants to secure at least one more walking and cycling land in the direction of schools and community facilities.

 

Local resident representation:

      i.          The amenities at Wulfstan Way are identified as a neighbourhood centre in Appendix C to the adopted 2018 Cambridge Local Plan.

     ii.          The vital role and significance of neighbourhood centres in the Local Plan is recognised in Policy 72, the purpose of which is “Ensuring that the district, local and neighbourhood centres remain healthy with a suitable mix of uses and few vacancies.”

   iii.          Specific references include the:

a.    Paragraph 2.65 “In particular, the smaller local and neighbourhood centres need to be protected, as they perform an important function in providing for day-to-day needs.”

b.    Paragraph 8.7 “Local and neighbourhood centres are particularly valuable in providing for everyday needs and need to be protected and enhanced. This network of centres is important in providing shops and facilities that can be accessed by foot and bicycle rather than having to travel by car.”

   iv.          As noted by other objectors to this application, the failure to include convenient and direct walking and cycling access between GB1 and Wulfstan Way severs the Netherhall Farm development from local amenities at the Wulfstan Way neighbourhood centre. This deficit undermines both the principle of prioritising sustainable transport (Policy 80 and 81) and the principle of ensuring the health of the existing neighbourhood centre (Policy 72). It is therefore incumbent on councillors to reject the application until appropriate connectivity to support these Policies is provided.

 

Local resident representation:

    i.            Representation related to the suitability of the proposed design of the access to Netherhall farm, which has been identified as the means of emergency access on the illustrative masterplan.

   ii.            The means of access for this application was not a reserved matter. At present the submitted arrangement shows no widening of the junction with Worts Causeway and no suitable passing provision at an appropriate and usable location for the existing users.

 iii.            The arrangement cannot serve the existing users of the access and emergency vehicles. Until a suitable and safe design access has been secured the application should not be approved with access not being a reserved matter. Ask that this matter is looked into before any approvals being issued.   

 

Local resident representation

      i.          The current plans posed a security risk, as well as an invasion of their privacy. (Showed plans on screen to detail privacy concerns)

     ii.          No additional privacy measures were proposed by the developers. Expected to have the same privacy protecting measures as the Northern Front.

   iii.          Referred to 2.21 of the main project plan, showed fencing of at least 1.8m high plus trees of at least 5m tall. Expected this around the whole of their property. It was inconsistent to grant one set of households to the northern front ‘additional security and privacy’ but not them.

   iv.          The Planning Officer had noted their concerns in the planning report but stated that it should be noted that the development was making public spaces around their property. This made their concerns greater and there would be zero accountability to who could access these grounds, which was to the rear of their house.

    v.          Building heights around the development would be 11.5m or 12m high. The visual assessment stated that 3 storey houses were prevalent in the area. Asked the developer to provide evidence how this was within the local character of the area.

   vi.          The nearest bus stop was outside the maximum recommended by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport. The Developers misrepresented advice from the CHID. The development was therefore not sustainable development from a public standpoint. 

 vii.          All previous objections, which have gone unanswered, still stand.

 

Local resident representation

      i.          Issue of the status of Netherhall Farm and the barns as a Building of Local Interest (BLI). Referred to Policy 62 and

a.    appearance, the BLI would be hidden by the proposed development

b.    setting within agricultural heritage.

     ii.          Previous applications submitted by the speaker had been declined because they had not been consistent with BLI. It was inconsistent to have a BLI be surrounded by a housing estate.  Asked if the development was approved that the BLI status was removed from Netherhall Farm and the barns. 

   iii.          Expressed concerns regarding loss of privacy.  The 20m buffer did not extend to their property. There was only a 6-7m buffer between edge of their garden and the proposed development.  Asked that the 20m buffer proposed by the developer was consistently applied to all existing properties.

   iv.          The access plan was unworkable. The developer proposed using the track leading to their property for emergency access. The developer had proposed a passing place but this was unworkable due to right of way issues. Requested condition regarding rights of way between the developer and all residents if the application was approved.

    v.          Mown pathway between site and western area through country wildlife site.

   vi.          Tree on their land had been omitted from the tree retention plan.

 vii.          Road widening on Worts Causeway will stop the road having the rural character it currently had. Road should be retained at current width as it provided a speed retention.

viii.          Queried cycleway way over a footway at the south side of Worts Causeway.

   ix.          Summarised principal objections:

a.    CEG design inappropriate adjacent to Building of Local Interest

b.    Loss of privacy having buildings so close to their property

c.    CEG’s access proposal is unworkable as no legal means for vehicles to pass

d.    Tree retention plan

e.    Mown pathway past bedroom windows

f.      Cycleway over footpath

 

Sophie Pryor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor McGerty (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Noted the applicant’s willingness to work with the community and local councillors.

     ii.          Noted the application’s 40% affordable housing contribution, which would make housing available to those who could demonstrate they had family locally.

   iii.          Noted high house prices in Queen Edith’s Ward.

   iv.          GB1 would provide 32 homes for people who work nearby and 24 affordable homes for people with family in the area, in addition to 24 affordable homes more generally available.

    v.          Application made positive contribution to biodiversity.

   vi.          Referred to the recently published Sustainability SPD.

 vii.          Noted that there was still no undertaking to provide a bus service to the area. Referred to section 8.107 of the officer’s report which stated that people would walk to the existing bus stops on Babraham Road. Thought people would not do this and would drive into town instead. Stated that there should be a new bus stop on Worts Causeway at the south western site entrance point. This could serve developments GB1 and GB2 equally. Asked for an update on bus providers / County Council.

viii.          Expressed concerns regarding the size of buildings going up close to residents’ homes.

   ix.          Noted that the 3 storey blocks had been moved into the centre of the development.

    x.          Queried the proposal to widen the road.

   xi.          Queried access to the local wildlife site.

 xii.          Asked for more information regarding the management plan for protected habitat.

xiii.          Expressed concerns that the pavement could become and overflow car park.

xiv.          If the development went ahead asked the officer to explain why Netherhall Farm and associated buildings should retain their status of BLI.

xv.          Requested fencing around 31 Worts Causeway.

xvi.          Expressed disappointment there was no walking and/ or cycling link into the Queen Edith’s community.

 

Following Councillor Tunnacliffe's concern over allotments and several councillors being unsure that sufficient efforts were taken by applicants to secure north access cut through route, the Principal Planner updated her report with the following recommendations:  

      i.          Landscape and ecological management plan could be secured through the s106 Agreement (would need to include reference to allotments). 

     ii.          Re-instate Condition 35. 

 

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation for an informative that the Applicant should negotiate a northern access cut though route for houses suggesting liaison with SusTrans who did something similar for the Chisholm Trail.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Changing the foul water informative to a condition.

     ii.          Condition 11 should include reference to the Cambridge Water Management Plan regarding 2020-2025 water resources.

   iii.          To increase the percentages in Condition 28 to adapt for current flooding conditions.

 

These amendments were carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the application for outline planning permission 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 with delegated authority granted to Officers to negotiate, secure and complete such an Agreement on terms considered appropriate and necessary;

     ii.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet;

   iii.          removal of Condition 1;

   iv.          landscape and ecological management  secured through the s106 Agreement (to include reference to allotments;

    v.          re-instatement of Condition 35;

   vi.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional/amended conditions:

a.    changing the foul water informative to a condition;

b.    condition 11 to include reference to the Cambridge Water Management Plan regarding 2020-2025 water resources;

c.    increase the percentages in Condition 28 (in consultation with Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Drainage Engineer); and

d.    an informative that the Applicant should negotiate a northern access cut though route for houses. Suggested liaising with SusTrans who did something similar for the Chisholm Trail.