Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
130 21/02759/FUL - Colville Road Phase 3, Land at Colville Road and Fishers Lane High Street PDF 247 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought
approval for demolition of existing buildings and erection of new
commercial/retail floor space, 48 new residential apartments and houses, new
car parking areas, new hard and soft landscaping, bin and bike stores and
associated works.
The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of
Cherry Hinton High Street. [The Committee Manager read a statement on behalf of
the Objector]:
i.
The council was putting too many
homes on a contextually important site for Cherry Hinton residents. Felt there
had been little regard for the impact of this development on existing
residents. The village High Street itself was an amenity whose character would
be lost with this overly ambitious development. A slightly less ambitious development
would strike a far better balance both for new and existing residents.
ii.
Specific concerns:
a.
The mass of Block A, the mass of
Block B and the ugly North elevation of Block B.
b.
The overall effect of so many
small council flats crammed into an area both for new residents’ amenity, and
for the effect on the wider community.
c.
The plans had been presented to
the public in a somewhat underhand way – with actions seemingly taken to
minimize local residents’ input. For example:
1. The
project was called Colville Phase 3 on neighbour letters and the site notices
which were sorely lacking in detail. The development is in fact on the High
Street.
2. The
developers’ own leaflets during their ‘consultation’ mysteriously were not
delivered to the majority of Cherry Hinton residents
including myself.
iii.
No person who lived in Cherry
Hinton was presented with a plan for the complete Colville development.
iv.
Queried if the council suspected
this development was not appropriate in size and scale for a village High
Street.
v.
The north-facing balconies that
face over the busy High Street cannot be considered an adequate amenity space.
vi.
Felt this application for
development of Cherry Hinton High Street was never truly up for debate. It was
presented as a fait accompli.
vii.
Where the Urban Design officer has
noted any issues with the plans, tiny changes then seem to count as complete
mitigation.
viii.
There was a seemingly deliberate
omission of mention of the many two-storey traditional homes right on Block B’s
doorstep which will be dwarfed by the new builds.
ix.
There seems to be a determination
throughout the plans that it must build the number of homes in the initial
designs.
x.
The benefit to local
residents of the development have been highly questionable. Councillors
have tried to say it will ‘improve access’ to green
spaces at the corners. That was a totally illogical claim. The two are
unrelated.
Mr Digby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that Condition 32 should be amended to require BREEAM Excellent’ instead of BREEAM 'Very
Good'. She proposed a deferral to effect this change.
This proposal was lost
by 3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation there should be an informative requesting 20% net gain in
biodiversity.
This amendment was unanimously carried.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to grant the application for 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;
iii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation with
the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional
conditions:
a. to
ensure commercial users were limited to relevant Class E users;
iv.
informative included on the
planning permission in respect of:
a. 20%
net gain in biodiversity.