Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors de Lacey and Turner.  Councillor Bygott attended as an alternate.

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.

No declarations were made.

To agree the minutes of the meeting of the 18^th January 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

Change to published agenda order

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

The Committee considered a reserved matters application pursuant to outline approval 14/0028/OUT, as varied by application 16/0970/S73, for the erection of 57 dwellings including 10 one-bed and 19 two-bed apartments together with 20 three-bed and 8 four-bedroom dwellings, open space, car parking and circulation space. 

The Committee noted the amendments to condition 14 tabled at Committee.   

Councillor Mark Ashton, Ward Councillor for Cherry Hinton addressed the Committee and welcomed the number of affordable houses that featured within the proposed development.  Councillor Ashton expressed concern regarding the construction phase of the development highlighting local residents concerns regarding access to the site and emphasising the importance of the developer adhering to the conditions set out in the officer report.

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

i.    Questioned the location of affordable housing within the development close the main road. 

ii.   Raised concerns regarding vehicular access into the site and it was suggested that there was an opportunity to access Hatherdene Close and minimise the number of accesses onto Coldhams Lane.  Concerns were also raised about the separation of affordable housing within the development.  Clarification was sought on the policy position to achieving mixed development as the affordable housing is seemingly separated from the rest of the development. 

iii.  Drew attention to locations of schools and public transport in the area seeking assurance that the development would not add to traffic congestion and that sufficient school provision was in place.    

In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following:

i.                     Drew attention to the planned shared ownership properties would have an attractive outlook onto Hatherdene Close,

ii.     Informed Members that following consultation the Council’s Housing Growth Officer was of the view that the proposed mix of properties would meet the need identified housing needs within that part of Cambridge.

iii.  Informed Members that transport implications had been carefully considered at the outline stage and that Cambridgeshire County Council was satisfied that the transport network will be able to meet additional future demands resulting from the development.

The Committee:

Resolved (by votes 13 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 and the amendment to condition 14 tabled at Committee.

The Committee received a re-submitted amended application following earlier refusal of planning permission for the erection of two temporary non-illuminated totem signs at two locations, on Madingely Road and Huntingdon Road.  

Mr Steve Venters, applicant and Ms Heather Topel, agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report

i.       Noted the work the developer had undertaken to address the objections of Members raised during the previous application but drew attention to the concerns of the Urban Design and Conservation Team and the objection received from Girton Parish Council.  Conventional means of advertising the new store such as television and radio would be sufficient to attract custom to the store without the need for the proposed signage.   

ii.     Drew attention to comments from Girton Parish Council that stated they had not had sufficient time to consider the application and that roadside advertising was inappropriate and would lead to congestion and affect local businesses by drawing trade away from them.

iii.    Questioned whether the colour of the proposed sign could be altered in order to mitigate its visual impact.  

iv.   Highlighted that the Local Centre would be operational at an early stage of the overall development and there would therefore be a limited number of local residents that could support the store.  It was important that the store was successful and some form of advertisement to support its opening was not unreasonable. 

v.     Sought assurance that the sign would not be erected for longer than the 18 months applied for.   

vi.   Suggested that the application be deferred until the Council’s signage guidance had been finalised and adopted. 

In response to Members’ questions officers said the following:

i.       Explained that the recommendation to approve the application was made on balance and that it was not unreasonable for the store to have supporting advertising for a limited 18 month period given the specific circumstances put forward. 

ii.     Confirmed that Girton Parish Council had been consulted as part of the planning process and comments had been received on 4^th January 2017.

iii.    Explained that if the applicant wished for the sign to be erected for longer than 18 months then the application would have to return to the Committee for consideration.   

iv.   Explained that City Council guidance regarding signage in this locality would be released   prior to the 18 month expiry date for these advertisements. The early delivery of the Local Centre at North West Cambridge is supported.  The need to support the store and the local centre on balance outweighed the negative impact on green belt.

The Committee:

Resolved (by votes 12 to 3 with 0 abstention) to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the condition set out in the officer report.

Cambridge Northern Fringe East

Developer briefing on hotel and office scheme proposals for CB4

The Committee received a presentation on the Cambridge Northern Fringe Site from Formation Architects.  

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.

i.       Questioned and expressed concern regarding the provision of cycling routes in relation to the development.

ii.     Asked how the covered walkway would be maintained in order for it to remain a safe and pleasant space. 

iii.    Welcomed the development of high density housing in close proximity to the railway station and questioned the impact of the development on the ability of the station in the future, raising concerns that the station had too few platforms. 

iv.   Questioned how many disabled access rooms would be incorporated within the proposed hotel.

v.     Queried the number of seating areas featured within the proposed development and requested that they were designed with arms to assist less able individuals.

vi.   Questioned the provision of solar panels within the development. 

vii.  Queried the management of the public realm.

Councillor Blencowe chaired the following item. Only City and County Councillors voted on these items.

Proposed diversion of Cambridge Footpath No. 117

Members received an update for an order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to permanently divert a public right of way involving diversion of part of Public Footpath No. 117 Cambridge, required to enable further development of the Clay Farm site, Trumpington. 

The Committee:

Members received an update for an order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to permanently divert a public right of way involving diversion of part of Public Footpath No. 117 Cambridge, required to enable further development of the Clay Farm site, Trumpington. 

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously – SCDC Members did not vote) to approve  that the diversion should be pursued and  that County Council officers should be instructed to submit the applications to the Planning Inspectorate for determination in accordance with the officer recommendation.