A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

21/02759/FUL - Colville Road Phase 3, Land at Colville Road and Fishers Lane High Street

Meeting: 01/12/2021 - Planning (Item 130)

130 21/02759/FUL - Colville Road Phase 3, Land at Colville Road and Fishers Lane High Street pdf icon 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.