Agenda and minutes

Councillor Bard opened the meeting.

The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager assumed the Chair and invited nominations for the Chair.

Councillor Bard was proposed by Councillor Cuffley, and seconded by Councillor Nightingale and Wotherspoon. 

On a show of hands, Councillor Bard was elected unanimously.  He assumed the Chair.

The Chair invited nominations for the Vice Chair.

Councillor Blencowe was proposed by Councillor Price and seconded by Councillor Nightingale. 

On a show of hands, Councillor Blencowe was elected unanimously.

The Chair advised that the Committee Manager would be informed of the Authority Spokes appointments after the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Turner. Councillor Wotherspoon 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.

The Planning Lawyer advised that it would be appropriate for Councillor Holt to participate in discussion on item 17/78/JDCC but not to cast a vote.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2017 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Van de Wayer arrived late; he took part in the discussion on this item but did not vote.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner regarding a development by Hill Residential Ltd on Plot M3 – Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Junction. All members of the committee were able to vote on this item.

Jamie Wilding agent for the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planner and New Neighbourhoods Development Manager said the following:

     i.        As a result of interest in fire safety after the Grenfell Tower incident, the Outline Fire Strategy Report which was prepared by Affinity Fire Engineering to inform the scheme design was read out. ‘The fire strategy for M3 was a ‘Stay Put’ strategy whereby residents would remain protected within their individual apartments until such time as the fire brigade initiated a phased evacuation. Each apartment was compartmentalised with floors & walls achieving 60/60/60 fire resistance. Protected corridors within the apartments achieved 30/30/30 fire resistance. Each apartment will be fitted with a fire detection and alarm system, designed and installed in accordance with British Standard BS 5839-6 (3). In addition an automatic fire sprinkler system would be installed to each apartment in accordance with the requirements of BS 9251 (4).’

    ii.        The Quality Panel had also questioned whether the natural light level in the lower apartments was satisfactory. An Environment Modelling Assessment had therefore been undertaken and resulted in a design reconfiguration. The Environmental Health Officer was now satisfied with light levels in each property.  

   iii.        Most of the flats were dual aspect and all floors had both stair and lift access.

  iv.        The Cycling Strategy provided a good level of provision. At present there were no prescriptive standards outlining the gradient of ramps so the same incline as standard stairs had been used. There would also be level cycle access at the north entrance of the building. Revised plans had addressed the movement of doors so that they do not contravene cycling standards.

   v.        Sheffield cycle stands would be installed.

  vi.        Disabled refuge sites in case of a fire would be outlined in the fire strategy. There would be a manned porter’s lodge so the site management team would negotiate and implement the fire strategy and evacuation. 

 vii.        The offsite visitor parking map outlined the parking allocation. The parking would be regulated and 3 disabled spaces had been provided at the front of the building.

viii.        The gallery area would be for pedestrian access only. The principle of accessibility for vehicles such as ambulances had been considered in the outline assessment by a Highways Officer because it is a fundamental requirement of any new development.

  ix.        Confirmed that it would not be appropriate to consider the details of the Ridgeway cycle route or its wider impact during this application.

   x.        As long as the minimum requirement of disabled parking spaces was satisfied, the extra provision for this application was not in our control. However, officers will bring an update on disabled parking provision on a site wide basis to Committee with the next NWC reserved matters item.

  xi.        Acoustic Modelling had been undertaken by an Environmental Health Officer and an acoustic specialist. The noise accommodation report accounted for a variety of noise sources advising that mitigation steps in terms of room design had been taken.  

 xii.        Confirmed that it was not the role of Planning to assess the degree of fire resistance/ compliance with building regulations and fire regulations of the material of external panels, they only considered their design. As such, officers could not comment on whether the panels were made of the same material as those used on Grenfell Tower.

xiii.        The type of toughened glass being used for the windows facing the sports field was considered to be satisfactory in terms of the Sport England feedback and risk of ball collision with windows.

xiv.        Waste disposal would be overseen by the building’s management team. The overall site waste strategy is one of the biggest and advanced underground waste strategies in the country so issues surrounding waste provision for people with disabilities and fly tipping would be accounted for as part of the overall management regime but also in terms of the management of this residential block which included porterage arrangements.

xv.        The University/developer would be responsible for management access to the building and parking allocation for visitors such as health professional, carers and doctors.

xvi.        A planning condition restriction had been implemented to ensure amplified music would not be played past 23:00.

xvii.        In response to Councillor Harford’s request, it was agreed to insert an additional informative into the recommendation advising of the need to provide a site specific Construction Method Statement under the outline planning approval. Councillor Harford’s concerns about  dust nuisance and any increase in the size of the bund should also be addressed by informative.

Resolved (by 12 votes to 0 with 3 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.

DECISION:         APPROVE as officer recommendation as set out on Page 52 of the Agenda, with additional informative advising of the need to provide a site specific Construction Method Statement under the outline planning approval and to highlight the issues highlighted about dust nuisance and any increase in  the size of the bund.

The committee resolved (by 15 votes to 0) to approve the proposed meeting dates.

Post meeting Committee Manager Note: The April date was incorrectly listed as April 28^th when it should have been April 18^th.

Developer (University) pre-application briefing on NWC Lot S3 market housing

The Committee received a presentation from the developer of the North West Cambridge site Lot S3 market housing. The presentation covered:

     i.        The location and immediate site context; it outlined how it fits in with the neighbouring developments. 

    ii.        The vision underpinning the development was for ‘life cycle living’ which would emphasise loft living with internal and external communal spaces focussed around ‘chance encounters’.

   iii.        The range and size of accommodation, all of which had large loft/mill style windows providing fashionable and adaptable space.

  iv.        Sustainability as a guiding principle of the development with a range of high performing features and integrated cycling facilities.

   v.        The unique character of the property and how the exterior colours were inspired by the River Cam on a misty morning. 

Members raised comments/questions as summarised 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 whether the cycle storage supplied with each flat was considered to be a good and worthwhile use of space?

    ii.        Queried whether the building would include Natural Ventilation with Heat Recycling (NVHR)?

   iii.        Asked which type of cycling stands would be used?

  iv.        Queried whether the access would require using an entry phone and key reader?

   v.        Asked if sprinklers were due to be installed into every property?

  vi.        Questioned whether the building was designed for cargo bikes to be brought up to the flats or would storage space be provided closer to the entrance to stop outside dirt going through the property?