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
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Shelton and Kenney. Councillor Harford attended as the alternate for Councillor Kenney. |
|
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. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an
update report on the review of the Joint Development Control Committee’s –
Cambridge Fringes terms of reference to accommodate City Deal infrastructure
schemes. The Committee noted the
revised terms of reference which had been circulated prior to the Committee
meeting. The Committee also noted that the operation of the revised Terms of
Reference should be reviewed after 12 months. The Committee made the
following comments in response to the report: i.
Asked what the difference
was between the terms of reference which had been circulated prior to Committee
and those included within the agenda pack. ii.
Commented on the issue
raised in paragraph 3.4 of the officer’s report, which dealt with voting rights
of Members which sat on the City Deal Board and the City Deal Assembly. Members
who sat on the City Deal Assembly did not make decisions they made
recommendations to the City Deal Board, they should therefore be able to make
decisions on applications that came to the Joint Development Control Committee. iii.
Commented that the name of
the Committee should remain as it currently was the “Joint Development Control
Committee”. In response to Members’ questions the New Neighbourhoods Development Manager said the following: i.
The terms of reference
within the agenda pack had incorrect footnote references. It also removed the requirement
for the Committee to make decisions on householder applications. These changes
were still being proposed and had been highlighted in the original 2015 JDCC
report but further to legal advice would need to come forward separately as
officers did not want these to create un-due delay with the City Deal processes
being agreed. ii.
Confirmed that legal advice
had been taken on the issue of City Deal Assembly Members’ and the City Deal
Board Members’ attending the Committee.
An updated advice note was read out at the meeting and confirmed that
there was no bar on City Deal Assembly Members’ attending and voting on
planning applications. The advice is copied into the minutes for completeness.
The connection between promotion of the scheme and deciding on related planning
applications was weaker with assembly members and the Head of Legal Services’
view was that there was less of a risk of damage to public confidence. There
was still an element of risk in terms of perception if, say, an assembly member
pressed for implementation of a scheme and then voted on the planning
application, but this was an issue generally within councils. There was not a
legal bar, provided that the member considered the planning application
properly. There was also not a Code of Conduct issue. The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to: i.
Note the agreed final
version of the amended Joint Development Control Committee Terms of Reference
as circulated at the Committee meeting. ii.
Retain the existing name
for the Committee being the Cambridge Fringe Sites Joint Development Control
Committee. |
|
15/1670/REM Darwin Green One, Land Between Huntingdon Road And Histon Road Cambridge PDF 511 KB Local Centre reserved matters application for 114 residential units including library, community rooms, health centre and retail units pursuant to outline consent 07/0003/OUT. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received a
reserved matters application pursuant to outline application 07/0003/OUT for
114 residential units and local centre including library,
community rooms, health centre and retail units. The Committee noted the
amendments detailed on the amendment sheet. The Committee made the
following comments in response to the report: i.
Praised the developers for
working closely with Council Officers and re-working the scheme to address
concerns. ii.
Raised several questions
regarding cycle parking, temporary parking, tenure mix of affordable housing
and existing health centres. iii.
Were pleased that the
development would deliver 40% affordable housing. Questioned whether any
indication had been given for who the registered provider would be. Referred to
first floor apartments meeting lifetime standards however no lift were
provided. iv.
Questioned why there were
no 3 or 4 bed units as part of this scheme and if these would be made up in the
other parts of the site. v.
Highlighted that the
disabled toilet door within the library opened inwards and that this should
open outwards. vi.
Queried whether
contamination of land had been considered. vii.
Requested that within the
car parking management plan there was a requirement for level access so that
there were no obstacles which prevented disabled users accessing the site.
Questioned whether delivery hours for the retail use needed to be conditioned. viii. Questioned if members of the public could be able to
use the open space. ix.
Questioned the naming of
streets on plans within the development. In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following:
i.
Issues raised in relation
to cycle parking had been addressed within the report and a condition would
ensure that visitor cycle parking was accommodated properly. In relation to the temporary parking issue,
the outline consent required an interim arrangement before the roads were
adopted, Officers did not feel that the temporary arrangements were appropriate
and therefore delayed the discharge of the condition. The comments on the
imbalance of the tenure mix of the affordable housing were on the original
submission and had now been addressed. The procurement process for the new
health centre was on-going but Officers were not aware of any
intention to close existing facilities at this time.
ii.
No update had been provided by Barratt’s as to who
the registered provider was but discussions had been positive. The developer
expressed concern about the on-going maintenance for lifts and the fact that
the cost would be passed onto the tenants of the affordable units.
iii.
Councillor Price confirmed that the City Council
had pressures on its housing register for 1 and 2 bed units. Later schemes
which have a slightly lower density and which were not on the spine road would
have more 3 or 4 bed units.
iv.
Confirmed that the disable door issues would be
reported to the developer.
v.
Confirmed that there was an outline condition
attached to the outline permission which dealt with the issue of contaminated
land this had to be discharged before the developers could start on site.
vi.
The opening hours for the retail uses was
controlled through the outline permission.
vii.
Confirmed that the open space was to be open to the
public and that it would be adopted by the City Council. viii.
Confirmed that the names given to streets on the
plans were for assistance purposes only and the actual street names and
numbering for the development would be completed by the officer responsible for
the Council’s Street Name and Numbering. The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation and the amendment sheet, for the reasons set out in the officer
report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|
16/0208/REM Darwin Green One, Land Between Huntingdon Road And Histon Road Cambridge PDF 2 MB Reserved matters application for first housing phase including 173 dwellings with associated internal roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The Reserved Matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Minutes: The Committee received a
reserved matters application pursuant to outline application 07/0003/OUT for
173 market and affordable dwellings with associated internal roads, car
parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The Committee noted the
amendments detailed on the amendment sheet and the Principal Planer verbally
updated the Committee on the following issues: i.
The materials condition
should re-instate the ‘and’ which had been removed on the amendment sheet so
that the first paragraph would read (re-instated text underlined): Prior to the commencement
of development samples of the buildings approved and identified below
and details of colour of the materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of buildings, which includes
external features such as garage doors, entrance doors, windows, roof and
hanging tiles, stone detailing, external metal work, balcony and balustrades,
rain water goods, coping, bike and bin stores, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. ii.
The removal of conditions
13 and 14 as the applicant submitted revised plans which detailed appropriate
widths for the cycle storage. The Committee made the
following comments in response to the report: i.
The visitor parking
allocation at 1 bay for every 11 dwellings was not sufficient. The location of
the parking spaces was not good for disabled users. ii.
Questioned whether the
comments from the Walking and cycling Officer had been addressed. iii.
The report stated that the
dwellings did not meet lifetime homes standards and questioned if the position
had changed since the publication of the agenda. iv.
Welcomed the provision of
39.9% affordable housing and wanted the building of the affordable housing
provision to commence. v.
Commented that access for
disabled users to take their rubbish to bin stores was not good. In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following: i. The number of visitor parking spaces was reasonable for the density of the development. Alternative layouts for the visitor spaces were explored with the Applicant however this would have required the re-design of the site. ii. Confirmed that the issues raised by the Walking and Cycling Officer had been addressed and referred to paragraph 8.91 – 8.103 of the Officer’s report. iii. Officers did push for lifetime homes with the Applicant unfortunately these were not a requirement of the outline permission and the wording of the Lifetime Homes scheme definition makes it very difficult to insist upon incorporation of lifts.. The Committee: Resolved (by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation subject to the amendments detailed in the amendment sheet and the
verbal amendments detailed at the meeting, for the reasons set out in the
officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|
Pre-Application Member Briefing - Primary School site, Clay Farm Development Site, Long Road Cambridge Regulation 3 application for Clay Farm Primary School. Minutes: The Committee received a
presentation from Frank Shaw Associates Limited on behalf of Cambridgeshire
County Council on the Clay Farm Primary School. Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Answers were
supplied, but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers
were to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes. 1. Asked what was being done about energy
and what the heating plans were for the building. 2. Asked whether the school was going to be
an academy or a free school. 3. Asked if the 3G pitch would be managed by
the school for community use. 4. Asked if there was a lift to the 2nd
floor of the school and if it would be wide enough to accommodate a standard wheelchair. 5. Asked if there was a drop off area for
people with accessibility requirements. 6. Asked if there was a County Council objection
to 2 storey primary schools. |