Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Baigent, Cuffley and Kenney.  Councillor Smart 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.

None.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th March 2017 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2017 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered a re-submitted, reserved matters application of 07/0620/OUT for pedestrian and cycle route and emergency vehicular access.  Only County and City Council Members were permitted to vote on the application and therefore the Vice-Chair, Councillor Blencowe assumed the Chair for the application.

Members noted the contents of the amendment sheet circulated prior to the meeting and that condition 3 was amended and not condition 8 as stated on the amendment sheet. Proposed new condition 9 was noted.

Mr Ian Hogg, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and made the following points:

i.       Requested that the hedgerow was maintained in order that habitat and security was provided and highlighted the lack of consultation regarding the application despite the shared ownership of the hedge.

ii.     Emphasised that completion of the pedestrian and cycle route there would be a greater need for security and privacy and drew attention to gaps within the hedgerow that required filling.

iii.    Drew attention to the infiltration trench running alongside the hedge and requested that it be repaired. 

iv.   Requested that a fence be constructed that would provide additional security. 

v.     Asked that the requests made were conditioned within the application. 

In response officers highlighted the Arboricultural Development Statement produced by the applicant that demonstrated the protection measures for the hedgerow and the trees and drew attention to the Cambridge City Council Landscape Team that found the application acceptable.   

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

i.       Questioned whether there was a Council policy to remove leylandii because they were detrimental to the environment.

ii.     Expressed concern regarding the hedgerow, the ownership of which was shared with 129 Shelford Road, noting the length of time that it took for hedgerows to mature if replaced.  Councillor Ashwood proposed, seconded by Councillor Blencowe with the unanimous agreement of the Committee that condition 9 be amended to cover a period of 5 years from the date of planning permission and that in the event of the hedgerow being replaced, a suitable alternative boundary be erected while the hedgerow becomes established.

iii.    Requested that gaps in the hedgerow be closed with locally sourced hawthorne. 

iv.   Questioned who would be responsible for maintenance of the hedgerow and if it was replaced who would water it.

v.     Requested that bollards be clearly visible to cyclists in the dark. 

vi.   Clarified the enforceability of condition 2 of the planning permission as the bollards would be designed to allow cargo bikes and trailers to pass through and therefore it would be possible for motorcycles to pass through.

vii.  Highlighted the importance of ensuring cuttings from the hedge were cleared properly in order to prevent punctures for cyclists. 

viii. Questioned why 2 bollards were necessary.      

In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following:

i.       Could not confirm that there was a policy regarding leylandii.

ii.     Explained that the design of the bollards had been carried out in consultation with the Council’s Cycling Officer who had stressed the importance of visibility.  The bollards that were currently in place would also be adjusted. 

iii.    Advised that a management company would maintain the hedgerow.

iv.   Informed Members that the bollards would not prevent a motorcycle or similar sized vehicle from using the path.  If there were specific issues that occurred in the future regarding the usage of the path then further measures would be investigated in collaboration with the Highways Authority. 

v.     Explained that the principle of the route was established within the outline planning permission for the Clay Farm development and there had been considerable consultation and discussion regarding the number and design of bollards which had been based on advice from the Council’s Walking and Cycling Officer and County Highways Officers.

vi.   The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager suggested that some of the concerns expressed about the potential impact on the hedge and loss of a boundary treatment could be addressed by further modifications to the wording of proposed new condition 9. This would be by changing the  replacement planting period to 5 years from 3 years  and including a reference to fencing as an alternative boundary treatment.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously City and County Members) to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the conditions  as updated by the Amendment sheet and at Committee in respect of the changes to condition 9 as agreed above.