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: Martin Whelan Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: The committee received apologies from City Councillor Reid, County Councillor Pegram and South Cambridgeshire Councillors De Lacey, Corney, Kindersley and Shelton. County Councillor Reynolds attended as an alternate. |
|||||||||||||||||||
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 Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes: None. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes To follow Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2012 were approved and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||||||
12/0890/REM - Bells School Development Site Babraham Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 0RA PDF 96 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The committee received a reserved matters application for proposed
road junction of site access road with Babraham Road, and initial section of
access road, including additional details required under condition 28 of the
outline planning permission (06/0795/OUT). The committee received the amendment sheet and noted the following updates:
Additional representations received Letter received from 19 Babraham Road stating “We
understand that the latest proposal is little different to the original
proposal which had several deficiencies in particular with respect to safety.
We wish to make clear our disapproval for this scheme. Babraham Road is already
an extremely busy road as the traffic surveys that have carried out clearly
show. To add to this traffic will cause further congestion. The scheme appears
to be impractical and will cause unnecessary disruption to an already congested
road.” Letter received from 18 Greenlands stating “We are Concerned about increase in noise and
disturbance along Greenlands – there is of course constant parking day and
night creating difficulties for disabled residents. Recently sewage problems
were resolved. Will they start again?” The Principal Planner confirmed that Cam Sight had also expressed concern over gradients on the site. It was noted that these concerns had been addressed in the revised drawings as circulated. Public Speakers The committee received five public speakers. Dr Silverston Dr Silverston spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: i. Despite assurances from Officer’s at the last meeting the Inspector had upheld the view of the committee that the junction was unsafe. ii. Expressed concern about the current location and design of the junction and felt that it would be unsafe for footway and cycleway users. iii. Suggested that alternative locations for the junction should be looked at. Mr Rutherford Mr Rutherford spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: i. Expressed concern about the late circulation of the revised drawings. ii. Expressed concern regarding the gradients on the site and the safety issues this raised for wheelchair users. iii. Urged the committee not to discharge Condition 28. Mr Carroll Mr Carroll spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: i. Expressed concern about the safety of the junction and compared it to other unsafe junctions in the City. ii. Highlighted examples of good practice relating to junction design across the City. iii. Expressed concern regarding the lack of an escape lane. Mr Woodburn Mr Woodburn spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: i. Expressed concern about the shared use pavements and the safety issues this may cause. ii. Felt that cycle pavements cause conflict and would be out of place in a new housing development. These were also only half the width of the minimum standards. iii. Felt that the junction went against statements in the Cambridge Local Plan. iv. Highlighted potential safety issues for the school children using this junction. Jenny Page The Applicants Agent spoke in support of the application. Councillor Swanson Councillor Swanson in her capacity as Ward Councillor for Queen Edith’s spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: i. Welcomed some aspects of the Inspectors ruling but still had concerns about the safety of the junction. ii. Highlighted the need to meet national standards and provide a high quality development for the City of Cambridge. iii. Suggested that alternative locations for the junction be looked at. In response to the concerns raised the Case Officer confirmed the following: i. Concerns regarding gradients had been taken on board by the applicant and addressed through the revised drawings. ii. The appeal process had been undertaken by an Inspector with previous experience in highways and engineering. iii. The Inspector had made site visits during peak traffic times. iv. Whilst comparisons could be drawn with similar junctions across the City, processes and good practice had evolved over recent years. v. The location of the junction had been approved and the reserved matters application was simply to agree the specific detail. Members of the committee made the following comments: i. Expressed continued concern regarding gradients and the late submission of the revised drawings to address the issue. The Case Officer apologised but confirmed that the information had been received after publication of the agenda. The Highways Officer confirmed that the revised drawings met County Council design criteria and recognised national guidelines. ii. Questioned whether the concerns raised by Cam Sight and the Disability Access Officer had been fully addressed by the revised drawings. The Case Officer confirmed that, as the gradients now met the required standards, the concerns had been addressed. iii. Expressed concern regarding queuing traffic during peak times and asked for confirmation of the stopping distance for a vehicle at 30mph. The Highways Officer confirmed a stopping distance of 43 metres and noted that the design of the junction fully took this into account. iv. Expressed concern that the combined gradient of the pavement and the roadway would be unsafe for wheelchair users. The Highways Officer confirmed that that the combined gradient would not exceed the recommended standards. v. Expressed concern that the safety issues raised at the previous meeting had not been fully addressed. vi. Expressed concern that accessing existing driveways near to the proposed junction would cause safety issues. Resolved (by 4 votes to 5) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application. The committee adjourned at 11.45am and re-convened at 12.05pm. Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendations for
the following reason: The local planning authority is not
satisfied that the scheme as proposed is safe for all users of the junction and
is unable to discharge condition 28. It has not been
demonstrated that the proposed gradients would be safe for users of the
combined cyclepath and pavement, and there are concerns about
the relationship between the proposed access and potential
conflicts with 6B Babraham Road and the width of the
proposed combined cyclepath and pavement is less than advised in national
guidance resulting in facilities that fail to meet the requirements of Cambridge
Local Plan Policy 8/4. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Re-ordering Agenda 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Briefing - Bell School Reserved Matter Residential (Hills Residential) Minutes: Hills
Residential gave a presentation on the Bell School Reserved Matter residential
application. In response to members questions representatives from Hills Residential confirmed the following: i. The current scheme had 25 % less accommodation than the outline consent, as the student block was not included. ii. The student block would be used primarily to house students of the Bell School. iii. The scheme had a variety of roof heights. iv. The retirement apartments would be for over 55’s and, whilst staff would be on site, care services would not be provided. v.
Photovoltaic cells would be placed on roofs but
there were currently no plans for ground source heat pumps. vi. Agreed that a resident’s parking scheme would be beneficial. vii. Public transport connections would be via Babraham Road or Addenbrookes Hospital. |
|||||||||||||||||||
12/0754/REM - Parcels 16 and part 17 Clay Farm Development Site, Cambridge PDF 405 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The committee received a reserved matters application (access, appearance, landscaping, layout
and scale) for 102 dwellings and associated landscaping including central open
space pursuant to outline application 07/0620/OUT. The committee receieved the amendment sheet and noted the following
updates. Amendments To Text: Para 8.53: Delete two sentences as shown: Maintenance rates have been agreed through the S106 process
for the open space to be transferred to the City Council. Para 8.75: Amend first bullet point as shown:
Pre-Committee Amendments To Recommendation: Condition 3: Addition of reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the
planting details are satisfactory (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7,
3/8, 3/11 and 3/12). Additional informative: The proposed street lighting positions within the
proposed adopted public highway are indicative only and the final location will
require the approval of the Highway Authority as part of the Section 38
submission. Public Speakers The Applicant (Mr Buttle and Ms McCafferty) spoke in support of the
application. Members
of the committee made the following comments:
i.
Felt reassured that the
application had received support from the Trumpington Resident’s Association. ii.
Questioned the balance
between car parking and cycle parking on the site. The Case Officer felt that
the correct balance had been achieved and confirmed that Cycling Officers were
in support of the application. It was also noted that the parking provision was
slightly less than in the reserved matters specification and that on-street
parking controls would be in place. A Car Club space would also be provided. iii.
Noted that many of the
2 bed units could be purchased as ‘buy to let’ properties and may require more
than the one allocated parkling space. Officers noted this comment. iv.
Welcomed the
tenure blind aspirations of the site and supported the balance between market
and affordable housing. Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Endorse the
principles for the development of parcels 15, 18 and the remainder of parcel 17
as set out in the Masterplan included within the Design & Access Statement;
and
ii.
Approve 12/0754/REM subject to the following conditions:
Informatives The applicant is advised that the Reserved Matters
applications for the remainder of parcel 17, parcels 15 and 18 shall be in accordance
with the masterplan drawings included within the Design & Access Statement,
particularly in relation to Affordable Housing Provision, Housing Mix and the
provision of open space. The applicant is advised that the drainage strategies for
Reserved Matters applications for the remainder of parcel 17, parcels 15 &
18 should be based on updated studies in relation to the ground water table,
which is higher than that on which the approved Strategic Surface Water
Drainage Strategy by Environs dated February 2011 is based. This will
exacerbate the difficulties of achieving a successful drainage strategy, and
increases the importance of involving a sustainable drainage engineer early in
the design process. The proposed street lighting positions within the
proposed adopted public highway are indicative only and the final location will
require the approval of the Highway Authority as part of the Section 38
submission. Please note that all outstanding conditions attached
to the outline permission will need to be addressed. Reasons
for Approval 1.This development has been approved subject to conditions because
subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development
Plan, particularly the following policies: Cambridge
Local Plan 2006: 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/7,
3/11, 3/12, 5/9, 5/10, 8/2, 8/4, 8/5 8/6,
8/7, 8/10, 8/16, 8/17, 8/18, 9/3, 9/5 2. The application was submitted pursuant to outline application 07/0620/OUT
and is compliant with the approved parameter plans and design code associated
with this outline approval. The decision has been made having had regard to all other material
planning considerations, including those where objections were made. The
location and height of the proposed dwellings are such that the impact on
adjacent properties is considered to be acceptable, with sufficient distances
provided between the properties. The layout and architectural detail of the
site has created a legible and coherent site, which reflects the aspirations of
the design code and will create a high quality environment for this site. The
site is well connected in terms of pedestrian and cycle routes, with high
quality links to the Guided Bus route. It is considered
that the proposal as amended adequately addresses all issues and objections. It
is considered that none of the objections was to have been of such significance
as to justify doing other than grant planning permission. |