Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from County Councillors Bradnam and Hudson also South Cambs Councillor Hunt. County Councillor Kindersley and South Cambs Councillor Allen were present as Alternates.

County Councillor Bygott was present in the gallery but took no part in the consideration of the applications.

The minutes of the meeting of the 18^th July 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received reserved matters applications regarding land North of Newmarket Road.

Application S/1004/18/RM concerned detailed appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for infrastructure works, including internal roads, landscaping and drainage as part of Phase 1 of the Wing masterplan of approved outline application S/2682/13/OL for up to 1,300 homes, primary school, food store, community facilities, open spaces, landscaping and associated infrastructure and other development.

Application 18/0459/REM concerned detailed infrastructure works, including internal roads, landscaping and drainage as part of Phase 1 of the Wing masterplan of outline planning permission 13/1837/OUT.

 The Committee noted the amendment sheet and the following update:

New condition to be imposed requiring details/size of the allotment car park.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that a small number of properties had been omitted from the consultation process and amended the recommendations as follows:

That subject to no additional material representations arising from the additional consultations, approval of the application be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development subject to the conditions contained in the report as amended by the amendment sheet.

Jamie Wilding addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the reports:

       i.          Questioned if sufficient weight had been given to the agreed traffic hierarchy as the degree of separation of motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists was inconsistent.

     ii.          The two way cycle path placed at one side of the carriageway would put cyclists on the wrong side of the road when exiting the site.

   iii.          Questioned how through traffic attending the ice rink would be managed at busy times.

In response to comments and questions, Development Control Engineer stated that:

         i.          The site had been carefully designed to allow the free flow of residents. The overall design created a sense of place. Road use was expected to be low with street clutter kept to a minimum. Give way signs and additional traffic controls could be installed at a later date should the need arise.

       ii.          A Toucan Crossing would be in place to assist cyclists leaving the site.

      iii.          The site had been designed to be a comfortable place to live with traffic movements largely controlled by design rather than signage.

     iv.          Small kerbs and changes to carriageway surfaces would alert those with visual impairments to their position within the traffic system.

       v.          Marshall’s had made a commitment to maintain the area to a high standard and although civil enforcement action would not be an option, should verge parking become an issue suitable prevention measures would be installed.

     vi.          Road signage directed towards cyclists would be on low key wooden posts and at a suitable sight line height for cyclists.

   vii.          A fluid approach would be taken towards any future additional traffic controls. Any complaints or problems would be monitored.

The Committee asked for more details regarding street lighting and the planned diversion of the public right of way. Officer’s confirmed that more information would be brought to this committee at a later date.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the site had been designed to create a feeling of intimacy with front doors opening onto public spaces. There would be low key separation of modes of transport in the quieter feeder streets. Routes to the leisure park might have heavier usage but this was unlikely to be at the peak commuter periods. Hard infrastructure had been avoided where possible as this created a less pleasing place to live. Should traffic control issues arise in future, the design allowed for enforcement measures to be installed retrospectively.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 12 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) that subject to no additional material representations arising from the additional consultations, approval of the reserved matters applications be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development subject to the conditions contained in the report as amended by the amendment sheet.