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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from SCDC Councillors Chamberlain and Hunt. Councillor Cheung Johnson attended as the alternate. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes: The minutes for the meeting of the 19th December were agreed and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment: 18/40/JDCC Declarations of Interest
|
|||||||
18/0355/FUL - Darwin Green One, Land Between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road Cambridge PDF 587 KB
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission for the temporary use of the ground floor of Block B,
Plot 70, BDW1 (first residential phase) as a Community Room The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report. i.
Asked for the minutes to show that
Councillors had received an email from the Windsor Road Resident Association
asking for a concern to be addressed. Would granting approval for a change in
the implementation date of the community rooms (temporary prior to the 50th
dwelling at Darwin Green One, and permanent upon completion of the 300th
dwelling occupation); enable the developer to say circumstances had
changed and not fulfill its obligations?
ii.
Expressed concern there appeared
to be a delay in delivery of community facilities. The options given appeared
to be having no facilities for 18 months if the application were refused or
having inadequate facilities for 18 months (estimated completion date for 50th
dwelling).
iii.
Queried if Barratts would delay
the delivery of permanent facilities until after the 300th dwelling occupation. iv.
Expressed concern there appeared
to be inadequate play provision and facilities for young people. v.
In contrast to the above views
about Darwin Green One, Trumpington Meadows was also built by Barratts and seen
as a good development. In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following: i.
A
compromise solution was negotiated by Community Development Officers to get a
community facility available in the first year. This was now under
construction. No public realm delivery issues were expected, any that arose
would be addressed. ii.
At the
current rate of building it would take 1-2 years before 300 dwellings were
completed and so trigger the permanent provision of facilities. iii.
Officers
would ensure there was sufficient space and marking out of (permanent) disabled
parking on-site. A temporary space was provided for the temporary sales centre.
The centre also had an accessible toilet. This could be controlled through
conditions. iv.
Environmental
Health Officers would monitor
if temporary facilities would disturb neighbouring properties. Planning
conditions would control/manage this (also for permanent facilities) and
inappropriate usage of parking by visitors. In response to Members’ questions the Growth Projects Officer said the following:
i.
It was good practice to have appropriate community
facilities in place on-site in a development.
ii.
The s106 pot had a limited number of funds to
manage facilities with. This would be for initial set up and running of
facilities prior to the management being taken over by another party.
iii.
The initial proposal was for the 100th dwelling
occupation to be the trigger for community room delivery. Health and safety
concerns were then raised regarding access of community facilities across a
building site, so the 500th dwelling occupation was suggested as the trigger
point. Officers negotiated a compromise whereby temporary facilities would be
provided when the 50th dwelling at Darwin Green One was first occupied,
allowing the permanent community rooms to be delivered upon completion of the
300th dwelling occupation.
iv.
The trigger was changed from 0 dwelling occupations
to 50 because demand was required for services to ensure their future
provision. The intention was to build up a programme of activities then pass
the centre over to another provider to run after s106 funding ceased. In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director said the following:
i.
Outline planning permission was granted in 2013.
This set out play provision.
ii.
The development had taken a long time to come
forward. The 2019 application was bound by the 2013 scheme.
iii.
It was a complicated scheme to build, so facilities
were being delivered in phases to ensure safe access once building work had started.
iv.
Officers did not have all the logistical details at
the outline planning stage, they were only coming to
light now. Issues had arisen as one team had reviewed details at the outset
then another team became involved during the practical delivery stage. Changes
in responsibility were usual in house building.
v.
The application was at a similar stage of
development in terms of facility provision (relative to occupation) as other
sites had been eg Clay Farm.
vi.
The County Council has a strategy for school provision
across the county. The application satisfied policies in the strategy. vii.
Play facilities and (general) activities were
currently available and open daily at the Eddington development. viii.
If the proposal for 50 dwellings as a trigger point
was rejected officers would have to ask Barratts if they could deliver
facilities earlier. This would re-open negotiations and it would be difficult
to influence Barratts to make changes to their proposal. Re-iterated that
facilities were currently being built and Barratts expected to have
temporary/permanent community facilities open when the 50th/300th dwellings
were occupied. A Community Development Officer would be based in the Darwin
Green Centre to manage it for residents (as paid for by s106).
ix.
“Occupation” would occur as per s106 triggers ie when people moved into dwellings. This was monitored by Barratts, City Council Community Development Officers and
the Council’s Construction Monitoring Officer.
x.
The development would be built by one developer,
and so done in a co-ordinated way, which would be difficult to achieve on
another site being built by several developers.
xi.
It was not possible to deliver community facilities
in-line with the original trigger point. Officers spent 2 years negotiating
with Barratts, taking local and national factors into consideration. The
Community Development Team were satisfied with the
recommended delivery timelines and access to facilities. xii.
The Strategy for Community Facilities sets out
provision across north west developments. Storey’s
Field would be a big play facility provider, smaller
facilities would be available in Darwin Green. Cross-use was expected between
sites. There was no logistical impediment for travel. Storey’s Field had an
underground carpark (at Sainsbury’s). It was possible to travel between the two
sites via a 15 minute walk across Huntingdon Road. xiii.
Storey’s Field was open every day and managed by
the City Council. As were other facilities in the Greater Cambridge area. Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to
the officer’s recommendation that an informative be added strongly advising
coordination with the Meadows and Storeys Field Community Centres for
implementation of strategic community development. This amendment was carried unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 11 votes to 3) 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. With additional informative to be
added strongly advising coordination with the Meadows and Storeys Field
Community Centres for implementation of strategic community development. |