Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Toni Birkin
Committee Manager
Items
| No. |
Item |
1. |
Introduction by Chair to the Forum
|
2. |
Apologies
To receive any apologies for absence.
|
3. |
Declarations of Interest
Members are asked
to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an application
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.
|
4. |
15/2063/FUL Land to the Rear of 268 Queen Edith's Way, Cambridge CB1 8NL
Application No: 15/2063/FUL
Site Address: 268 Queen Edith’s Way, Cambridge CB1 8NL
Description: Erection
of 3.No four bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard
and soft landscaping.
Applicant: Dudley Developments
Agent: Peter
Mckeown
Address: 6-8
Hills Road Lead Petitioner: Resident of Queen Edith’s Way
Case Officer: Sav Patel
Text of Petition:
|
Although there is still an
almost insurmountable opposition to any additional development at this
location, it is possible that the local community may accept some development
having a far less impact on the very special character of the area in general
and the adjoining residences in particular. It is possible that this may have
been communicated to the developer in times-past had the developer bothered
to engage with us in any way, and at any time – which did not happen.
Let us be absolutely clear, however,
that as a community we are still totally opposed to the current proposal as
it stands – a compromise solution may be possible.
Road
safety.
There
is a major concern on this issue and the new access provision. Access
requirements that meet the statutory provisions at the University Primary
School are believed now to be a substantial risk to children accessing the
school and we have similar concerns for the far higher numbers accessing Netherhall. The school itself is opposed to the
application on safety grounds
Protection
of the urban edge of the City.
We
believe that we can suggest revised proposals that could minimise the impact
on residents concerns in connection with the “green
corridor”. This is very much needed as the developer has not provided
sufficient details on this issue in the planning application, and continues
to assert that the whole development will be almost invisible from without.
Loss of amenity.
We believe that we have a
number of proposals that could substantially address the loss of amenity of
the residents, and at the same time make far better use of the development
site with the possibility of larger units
|
|
PDF 88 KB