Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Sarah Steed Committee Manager
Note: Item 5 - Incorrect planning reference this should read 15/2216/FUL and not 15/2216/REM.
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Shelton and Councillor Kenney. Councillor Harford was present as an alternate. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes: No interests were declared. |
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2016 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the 18 November 2015 were agreed and signed as a correct record. |
|
C/5000/15/CC - Darwin Green One, Land Between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road, Cambridge PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission for a
2 Form Entry (420 pupil) Primary School, together with a Children’s Centre,
play space, sports pitches, car parking, and associated landscaping. David Fletcher (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.
i.
Expressed concerns about the safety aspects of the
teaching stairs.
ii.
Expressed disappointment that there was no
representative of the future Board of Governors or Sponsor present.
iii.
Welcomed
the community engagement regarding the design of shared facilities such as the
kitchen attached to the community rooms. iv.
Members
were disappointed that the disabled parking arrangements required users to
enter the building from the rear instead of the front door. Councillor Bird
stated that this was unacceptable.
v.
Members
expressed disappointment that the cycle parking arrangements, while meeting
minimum standards, lacked vision and aspiration. Dr
Finney responded to questions regarding the pedestrian crossing. He stated that
it was not possible to predict pedestrian and cyclist behavior at this stage of
the development. The planning condition would ensure that the school would set
aside funding for a crossing, should this prove to be needed at a later date.
It was not possible to require this as part of a S106 agreement as this was a
Regulation 3 application. It was possible that a crossing might not be needed
as the site would be relatively car free. Alternatively, this road might prove
to be a popular through route for those seeking an orbital route short cut. The
New Neighbourhoods Development Manager stated that as this
was a stand-alone application other developments could not be considered.
Subsequent allocations would include their own mitigation measures. In response to
Members’ questions the Business Manager Emma Fitch
and Education Department
representative, Rob Lewis said the following: i.
Stated that the safety of
the teaching stairs was not a planning consideration. However, similar
arrangements worked well in other schools. Firm rules on student use ensured
their safety. ii.
Explained that as this
school had no firm opening date, there was no Sponsor or Board of Governors in
place yet. iii.
If planning consent was
granted, the applicant would have three years to start work on site before the
permission lapsed. iv.
Confirmed that the
development of this site had been moved back several times and therefore the
trigger points were flexible. v.
Confirmed that the sprinkler
tank had been located away from areas used by children and would be safely
sealed. Due to insurance issues, it was not possible to locate this facility
underground. vi.
The proposed opening date
of the school was outside the control of Cambridgeshire County Council.
However, measures were in place to allow the school to grow with the build out
of the development to minimize the impact on other schools in the area. The
current triggers were linked to the transfer of land and consent was needed now
to allow flexibility. vii.
Child yield figures were
based on the latest data available. However, this would need to be revisited as
the site evolved. viii.
Stated that the cycle
parking, both inside and outside the school premises, was generous. ix.
A robust travel plan would
be in place to manage any car drop off issues. x.
Councillor Bird’s comment
regarding the disabled parking was noted. xi.
Agreed
that whilst visual images provided showed mature planting, the actual planting
would be younger specimens. However, the species illustrated were correct and
were included in the planning conditions. The Committee: Resolved (by 14 votes to 0 with 1 abstentions) 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. |
|
Councillor Blencowe chaired items 16/5/JDCC and 16/6/JDCC . Only City and County Councillors voted on these items. |
|
15/2216/REM Hudson Close Cambridge, Cambridgeshire PDF 311 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission for the development of eight apartments in a
barn style building and the re-siting and re-use of existing Pole Barn to
provide for cycle parking and refuse storage with associated access, car
parking, landscaping and all other works necessary to facilitate the proposed
development. The Committee noted the amendments presented in the
amendment sheet. Marcia Whitehead (Applicant’s Agent)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved – unanimously (SCDC Councillors did not vote) 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. |
|
15/2296/S73 - Parcel 21, Clay Farm Development Site PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73 application to alter the width of
the public footpath (Public Footpath 117- running along the rear of Foster Road
properties) from 1.2m to 2m (loss of 0.8m landscape strip) as part of approval
14/1201/REM (208 residential dwellings and 540sqm of A1, A2 and A5 uses), at Parcel 21 Clay Farm development site. Ref:15/2296/S73. It was noted that a deviation order would also
be needed. In response to Members’ questions, the New
Neighbourhoods Development Manager, explained that
due to the current Terms of Reference (ToR) for this
committee, small applications were being caught in the decision making process.
It had been agreed that the major changes to ToR
regarding the City Deal decisions needed to be ratified first. Once this had
been completed, the minor changes needed to exclude minor decisions, which
could be more efficiently dealt with elsewhere, would be ratified. The Committee: Resolved - unanimously (SCDC Councillors
did not vote) 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. |