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: Please note that application 16/0746/REM - Field at the corner of Coldams Lane and Hatherdene Close, Cambridge has been withdrawn
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from
Councillors Hipkin, Kenney, Price and Turner.
Councillors Gawthrope and Harford
attended as alternates. |
|||||||
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 Monitoring Officer before the meeting. Minutes:
|
|||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2016 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 16
November 2016 were agreed and signed as a correct record subject to the addition
of Councillor Turner who attended the meeting and Councillor Nightingale who
gave his apologies. |
|||||||
S/2176/16/RM and 16/1488/REM - Trumpington Meadows, Riverside Phase 9 PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Committee received applications for 122 residential
dwellings, 80 units of which were located within South Cambridgeshire and 42
within Cambridge City. The application included
associated infrastructure, surface car parking, landscaping, amenity and public
open space, pursuant to outline planning approvals S/0054/08/O and 08/0048/OUT. The Committee noted the amendments detailed in the amendment
sheet. Mr Nugent (Applicants Agent) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report. i.
Expressed concern that a major application had been presented
without plans or illustrations of the proposed development included in the
officer report. ii.
Noted that the proposed development appeared to represent a solid
barrier to the country park and questioned the level of impact on existing
residents’ amenity. iii.
Clarified the car parking availability for the development. iv.
Questioned whether the car parking spaces were sufficiently large
enough to accommodate modern vehicles and the trend for large Sports Utility
Vehicles (SUVs). v.
Asked whether there was sufficient space within the cycle parking
scheme for cargo cycles. vi.
Welcomed the level of affordable housing that would be provided
within the development. vii.
Questioned the provision of affordable 3 and 4 bed properties
within the development. viii.
Drew attention to the impact of un-adopted roads on residents of
affordable housing. ix.
Noted the interaction of the proposed development with the wider
site and commended the scheme for the level of affordable housing provided. x.
Expressed concern regarding the PROW building and questioned
whether it was envisaged within the design process to construct a predominantly
different building. xi.
Questioned how the Design Code remained up to date with changing
design standards. xii.Clarified
why the development was named Riverside and its proximity to the river. xiii.
Expressed concern regarding the context of the development with
regard to the view of the development from the river. xiv.
Highlighted the issues of car parking and requested that more
imaginative solutions be developed to manage the issue. xv.
Noted and welcomed the response of the Cambridgeshire Quality
Panel and questioned whether the Quality Panel had the opportunity to provide
further comments following the comments of officers. xvi.
Clarified the wording of paragraph 5.3 of the report. xvii.
Noted that the concern of the Refuse Team contained in paragraph
6.4 of the report did not appear to have been addressed along with the concerns
raised in paragraph 6.12 by the Drainage Officer. In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following: i.
The site consisted of a combination of 2 and 4 storey blocks
combined with open spaces such as Pipers Green that ran through the centre of
the site. The curved nature of site
would also soften the visual impact of the buildings. ii.
Specific car parking was allocated to the proposed Riverside
development and visitor parking was provided by the Trumpington
Meadows site as a whole. iii.
The
size of car parking spaces were determined by an
assessment of average car size. iv.The cycle
parking had been developed in accordance with the design code and that a
mixture of parking was available including garages, cycle stores and Sheffield
Hoops with 1m clearance between the hoops. v.
Phases 7 and 8 included larger affordable properties and that the
Riverside development was designed to provide smaller affordable accommodation
units and taking into account that this was a higher density part of the
overall development. . vi.Un-adopted
roads would be managed by the same company that currently managed the wider Trumpington Meadows site.
The affordable housing provider, BPHA , had
been consulted on the proposals at pre-application stage and had not raised
concerns regarding the impact of service/maintenance costs on the affordability
of the units where roads were unadopted. vii.
The PROW building had developed through numerous iterations and
had been challenging to incorporate within the scheme. The design was intended to follow the ridge
line across the country park. viii.
Standards had not changed significantly since when the Design Code
was written. ix.
The Riverside name had arisen from the Design Code name for the
character zone and confirmed that the site would not be marketed as Riverside. x.
As is standard practice, The Quality Panel had not had the
opportunity to provide further comment on this Reserved Matters application but
the wider issue would be discussed at a meeting of the Quality Charter Steering
Group. xi.
Paragraph 5.3 was standard wording that appeared in reports
regarding the material weight that could be attributed to emerging policies
within negotiations. xii.
The Refuse Team and the Drainage officer had confirmed that they
were satisfied with the proposals. The Committee: Resolved unanimously to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the conditions set out in the officer report. |