Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Baigent, Orgee, de Lacey and Turner.  Councillors Harford and Smart attended as alternates.

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.

None.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2016 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2016 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered an application for a Local Centre that comprised of 40 new dwellings with associated internal roads, car and cycle parking, landscaping and open space and 450 square metres of A1, A2, A3 or D1 use pursuant to outline planning approval S/0054/08/O.

 

The Committee noted the amendments detailed in the amendment sheet.

 

Councillor Kenney entered the meeting at 10:35am.  As Councillor Kenney had not been present for the entire presentation the Chairman informed her that she would not be able to cast a vote on the application.

 

Alison Wright, Planning Consultant at Bidwells acting as agent for the applicant addressed the Committee:

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

 

i.        Queried the provision of disabled car parking spaces within the central square. 

ii.       Welcomed the level of affordable housing allocated within the development but expressed concern regarding how the social housing was clustered across the development as a whole. 

iii.      Drew attention to the Spine Road West that ran through the central square and expressed concern regarding traffic and the lack of explicit cycling provision that would result in conflict between different road users, questioning what prioritisation there would be for cyclists and whether there would be clear signage installed. 

iv.      Highlighted the central square, commenting that it was an area that would be dominated by cars, required drivers to understand the area and without clear boundaries between road users it would not be safe.     

v.       Questioned what action was being undertaken to ensure that the commercial units were let at the earliest opportunity. 

vi.      Requested further information regarding the recycling centre and the revised stair case design.

vii.     Queried why all refuse could not be collected underground using a similar method to the underground recycling.   

viii.    Queried the phasing of the development and whether the developer had provided assurances regarding the timescales of the build.

ix.      Confirmed that there were 14 parking spaces located at the Central Square not 10 contained within the report.

x.       Expressed concerns regarding the proposed opening hours of the convenience store.

xi.      Questioned where the nearest available bus route was.  –

 

In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following:

 

i.        Confirmed that disabled parking would be available within the Central Square and would be clearly marked.

ii.       Explained that the numbers of cars travelling through the development were expected to be low in number and moving at low speed.  The Central Square was designed to be a shared space and the road would be clearly marked but there would be no designated crossing places within the Central Square.

iii.      Explained that the square would be privately managed with restricted car parking.  The Central Square was designed in a manner so there was no parking elsewhere apart from in the designated spaces.  Landscaping and street furniture had been incorporated to prevent illegal parking. 

iv.      Confirmed that a marketing strategy for the retail units had been developed and the applicant had been keeping officers informed of progress.  Although no retailer would move into the units until planning permission had been granted there were two national chains that had expressed interest in the units.

v.       Informed Members that that the recycling centre for electricals, books and textiles consisted of three above ground hoppers with bins located underground with a hydraulic lift.  Officers explained that the change in design of the stairwell was minor in terms of layout and agreed to circulate images following the meeting. 

vi.      Explained that the cost implications prevented underground refuse collection being incorporated within the development.  A feasibility study for one parcel of the Clay Farm site had determined that the cost was prohibitive For smaller scale projects . Noted that this was a reserved matters application following an outline permission and that underground waste systems would need to be designed in at outline stage. 

vii.     Confirmed that construction of the Riverside apartments had begun and if planning permission was granted it was anticipated that construction would begin in April 2017.  The developer was keen to begin construction as soon as possible in order to avoid having to stand the workforce down.

viii.    Confirmed that Spine Road West, adjacent to the site was the nearest bus route along with the Park and Ride service.  There had been no commitment received from a commercial bus operator on the site.  The roads had been designed to accommodate and therefore a bus route was viable.

ix.      Explained that the opening times of the retail units did not preclude the occupant applying to vary the condition relating to opening times.

x.       Confirmed that there was separate parking available for cargo bikes.

 

A correction was noted to the Pre-Committee Amendment Sheet to the effect that the updated plan numbers all referred to the Local Centre scheme and not the Riverside scheme.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.

Developer briefing update on the pedestrian cycle way required to be delivered under applications S/3102/15/FL (SCDC) and 15/2317/FUL (City Council) and the related S106 agreement associated with the opening of the new Cambridge North train station.

Due to an error on the agenda there was not a presentation therefore the meeting ended at 11:20am