To receive any apologies for absence.

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.

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.

None.  

To follow

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2012 were approved and signed as a correct record.

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.

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. 

 

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.

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. However, these rates did not include attenuation tanks. An additional payment will be secured for this through the S106 clause. Payment will be made at the time of transfer. This will be after one year of maintenance by the developer, through the Remedy of Defects process.

 

Para 8.75: Amend first bullet point as shown:

A large attenuation tank under The sunken lawn within the central square. The depression itself would also will store rainfall from events between the 1 in 30 year event and the 1 in 100 year plus 30% climate change event;

 

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:

 

 

1.

Drainage Strategy Notwithstanding the submitted Surface Water Strategy dated April 2012, prior to the commencement of development a detailed surface water strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should include: a)    An Earthworks Specification for General Excavation and Fill Areas; b)    A scheme for surface water disposal; and c)    Groundwater monitoring for the duration of construction that will inform the detailed design of any infiltration system. Infiltration systems should only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a risk to groundwater quality. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.   Reason: In order to safeguard against the increased risk of flooding, to ensure adequate flood control and to ensure the quality of the water entering receiving watercourses is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 4/16 and 9/3)

2.

Lighting Strategy and service routes Prior to the commencement of development apart from agreed enabling works, a lighting plan showing the location of all lighting including that relating to the parking courts and all utility and service routes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No apartment buildings facades shall be lit by up-lighting. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.   Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development will not result in unacceptable light pollution and to ensure the safeguarding of trees proposed to be planted (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/2, 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 4/4, 4/13 and 4/15).

 

3.	Landscape details Prior to the commencement of a residential building, detailed planting plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.   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).
4.	Play Equipment in Central Square Prior to commencement of any dwelling adjacent to Central Square details of the play equipment including mixed ability equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority A. All play equipment shall be installed in accordance with approved details and available for use prior to first occupation of any dwelling adjacent to Central Square.   Reason: To ensure appropriate equipment is provided within the area of play and In the interests of neighbouring amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 8/18)
5.	Play Equipment in Green Street Prior to commencement of any dwelling adjacent to the Green Street open space details of the play equipment including mixed ability equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All play equipment shall be installed in accordance with approved details and available for use prior to first occupation of any dwelling adjacent to Green Street open space.   Reason: To ensure appropriate equipment is provided within the area of play and In the interests of neighbouring amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 8/18)
6.	Glazing Prior to the occupation of any apartments in Block A or C facing Addenbrooke’s Road, details of the screened balcony system as referred to in the “Noise Assessment Clay Farm Phase 1 of parcels 9, 9a and 15 to 18” by Environs, dated May 2012, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The balcony screens shall be installed in accordance with approved details and retained in situ thereafter.   Reason: To ensure that the appropriate glazing with ventilation is provided and is appropriately located that it does not form a prominent feature within the design of the dwelling. (Cambridge Local Plan Policies 3/12, 4/13)
7.	Fire Hydrants A scheme for the provision of fire hydrants shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.  The approved scheme shall be fully operational prior to the first occupation of the development, or as agreed in writing with the local planning authority. No development shall take place otherwise than in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate water supply infrastructure to protect the safe living and working environment for all users and visitors (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 Policies 3/7, 3/12, 8/18 and 9/3).
8.	Dropped Kerbs Dropped kerbs shall be provided on all areas of footway located in front of communal bin storage access points.   Reason: To ensure appropriate and easy access for waste collection for all communal bin storage. (Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/12)
9.	Interim Parking Arrangements Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, details of the Interim Parking Management Arrangements (prior to any formal adoption) for the Highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: a) how parking within the development is to be managed and controlled so that it occurs within designated vehicular parking bays b) how the proposed measures are to be publicised to potential purchasers c) how the subsequent enforcement of parking that occurs outside designated vehicular parking bays is to be managed d) what transitional arrangement will be put in place and secured with the Highway Authority to ensure that such arrangements or similar continue. Prior to the use of any highway for access to a residential property, the submitted Interim Parking Management Arrangements shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.   Reason: To avoid the proliferation of parking across the site that is uncontrolled and can limit the proper functioning of the site, to ensure that parking management of the site is consistent at an early stage in its development, in the interests of sustainable travel choice and to ensure that the site does not become a parking refuge for commuters (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/1, 3/7, 8/2 and 8/11)

 

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.