Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2 - Guildhall
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Opening Remarks by
Chair The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control
Forum. He stated no decisions would be
taken at the meeting. Apologies Apologies were received from Councillors Herbert, McQueen, Page-Croft, Sargeant
and Tunnacliffe. Declarations of
Interest
|
|||||||
Application and Petition Details Application No: 19/0560/FUL Site Address: Land Rear Of 5-17
New Square Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 1EY
Description: Demolition of existing garages,
relocation of existing sub-station within the site, and redevelopment to
provide 8no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with
associated infrastructure and landscaping. Applicant: Jesus College Agent: Mr Perpertua In Perpetuum Ltd Address: 4
Belmont Place Cambridge CB1 1AR Cambridgeshire Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Orchard Street Case
Officer: Mairead O’Sullivan Text of
Petition: The grounds for
asking for a Forum on this application are as follows: i) Loss of amenity: Further decrease in number of off-street parking spaces against increased demand. ii) Sustainability: Overdevelopment height/ elevation – single storey garages replaced with some double height buildings, concerns of overlooking. Small units discourage long term leases and opportunity to become part of a rich and varied community. iii) Visual impact: No provision for cycles, storage of waste bins. Orchard St/Elm St are visited by tourists and visitors. It is vitally important that bicycles and bins are safely and securely stored. Do you think there are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns?: Yes these are: i) Create more residents or rentable parking spaces to compensate for loss of 20 garages. ii) Revisit allocation of visitor parking permits for the new dwellings. iii) Explore alternative options for fewer, larger single storey dwellings to encourage longer tenancies, preferably for key workers and their families. iv) Incorporate space in the design for cycles and waste bins. Minutes: Application and
Petition Details Application No: 19/0560/FUL Site Address: Land
Rear Of 5-17 New Square Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 1EY Description: Demolition
of existing garages, relocation of existing sub-station within the site, and
redevelopment to provide 8no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with
associated infrastructure and landscaping. Applicant: Jesus
College Agent: Mr
Perpertua In Perpetuum Ltd Lead Petitioner: Resident of
Orchard Street Case Officer: Mairead O’Sullivan Text of Petition: Concerns
raised regarding – i)
Loss of amenity: Further decrease
in number of off-street parking spaces against increased demand. ii)
Sustainability: Overdevelopment
height/ elevation – single storey garages replaced with some double height
buildings, concerns of overlooking. Small units discourage long term leases and
opportunity to become part of a rich and varied community. iii)
Visual impact: No provision for
cycles, storage of waste bins. Orchard St/Elm St are visited by tourists and
visitors. It is vitally important that bicycles and bins are safely and
securely stored. Case by Agent Mark Tavare made the following points: 1)
Described the site location. 2)
Design
process timeline:
i.
09.03.18 Pre-application meeting at Guildhall
ii.
13.06.18 Pre-application email response
iii.
19.07.18 Public Consultation Exhibition at Jesus College
iv.
17.08.18 Pre-application meeting at Guildhall
v.
30.08.18 Progress meeting with Ward Councillors 3)
Public Consultation:
i.
10 dwellings was thought to be
overdevelopment.
ii.
Arrangement for storage/collection
of bins needed.
iii.
Preference for soft landscaping in
front of dwellings.
iv.
Concerns about noise pollution.
v.
Concerns of impact on existing
resident residential amenity.
vi.
Garages were let to local people. 4)
Described the final submission site plan. Peter McKeown made the following
points: 5)
The application was subject to
pre-application discussions with city council officers. A public consultation
event occurred in July. 6)
The principle of development was
acceptable and the proposals were compliant with Policies 3 and 52 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. 7)
The proposals would result in the
loss of 21 single garages, all in the ownership of the applicant. These
were rented out on short term leases and not protected in Policy terms. 8)
The site was located entirely
within the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Existing residents had permits
and were entitled to park on the surrounding streets. New residents of
the development would not be entitled to parking permits. 9)
Consultee responses were all
positive (the Tree Officer responded the day before this meeting). 10)
Grounds for requesting a DCF:
i.
Loss of amenity – reduction in off
street parking spaces.
ii.
Overdevelopment – overlooking from
two storey elements.
iii.
Visual impact– no provision for
cycles or storage of waste bins. 11)
Changes that could be made:
i.
Create more residents parking
spaces to compensate for the loss of 21 garages.
ii.
Revisit allocation of visitor
parking permits for the new dwellings.
iii.
Explore opportunities for fewer
dwellings. 12)
Bin and cycle storage:
i.
Policy compliant cycle parking was
provided for the 8 new dwellings.
ii.
There was no requirement for the
scheme to provide cycle parking for adjoining properties.
iii.
Four of the units had bin storage
provided on plot. Communal bins were provided for the other four units
and the properties on New Square to the rear. Case by
Petitioners The Petitioner spoke on behalf of local residents. He made the following
points: 13)
Residents wanted a development that enhanced
the character of the area. They were not against the developing the area, but
took issue with the specific details in this application. 14)
Concerns of Local Residents:
i.
Lack of consultation. Invitations
were limited to properties immediately backing onto proposed development – one
side of Orchard Street cottages and one side of New Square.
ii.
This was the fourth development in
the area by the developer.
iii.
Overdevelopment of site.
iv.
Safety: o
Creating a narrow street with
walls either side. Two cars could not pass due to a lack of room along the
entire (narrow) length of Elm Street. The road was used as a cut through for
other parts of the city. The application would exacerbate the current
situation. o
New property building windows
would open onto the street. Solution:
Push back the whole development by 2 metres into New Square back-gardens and
create a pavement and / or create a passing place at the mid-point.
v.
Height of two storey buildings.
Overshadowing, overbearing and overlooking. Solution:
Change to single storey. Create the desired second bedroom within the stairwell
space of current design.
vi.
The chimneys on the proposed plan
serve no function and interfere with the tree line making the view one of
'prison bars'. They are present in some drawings, but not all, so design
details were inconsistent. Solution:
Remove the chimneys.
vii.
The Highways report was useful but
the comments made were based mainly on a flawed theoretical assessment of the
geography of the street and that resident traffic is the main volume of
traffic. There was no empirical data to back up the report. Solution:
A more robust survey to be made which puts the traffic flow of the street in
the wider context of traffic movement in the Kite.
viii.
Queried if Councillors were happy
with an electricity sub-station being located between two houses. Case Officer’s
Comments: 15)
Details regarding the application
were sent to neighbouring properties. 16)
Subsequent to this, fifteen
representations were received from local residents. Key issues: a.
Loss of garages. b.
Parking. c.
Application design. d.
Visibility in narrow street. e.
Neighbours’ amenity. 17)
Statutory consultees raised no objections,
subject to planning conditions. Case by Ward
Councillors Councillor Porrer spoke as a Ward Councillor on behalf of local
residents. She made the following points: 18)
Had no objection to the development, just
wanted to ensure it was appropriate. 19)
Bins:
i.
It was unclear on plans if back
alleys (used to access bins) were lockable to avoid anti-social behaviour.
ii.
Queried if Waste Operatives would
have access to collect bins, or if they would be left on pavements and block
the street.
iii.
It was unclear on plans if
recycling (green) bins were provided. 20)
Amenity space. Queried if there was
sufficient:
i.
Private amenity space for
residents, or if this would be taken up by bike/bin storage.
ii.
Space allocated for bike storage
and different types of bikes eg cargo bikes. 21)
A tree (that was not protected)
was being lost. Queried what compensation measures would be put in place for
loss of gardens and biodiversity as a result of this application. Councillor Bick spoke as a Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents.
He made the following points: 22)
The Applicant and Petitioners
wanted a high quality application on the site. 23)
Concern: The application would
exacerbate parking issues in the area by removing off-street parking and
forcing cars on-street, which would increase demand in the area. 24)
Concern: Width of the road.
i.
The road was used as a cut through
by commuters.
ii.
Elm Street was a narrow road which
raised safety concerns.
iii.
Requested officers obtained more
data from the Highways Authority to get a better idea of road usage to confirm
if there would be issues or not. Members’ Questions
and Comments: Peter McKeown answered as follows in response to Members’ questions and
comments: 25)
Locked gates would be provided for the bin
stores. Was happy to accept a condition requiring this. 26)
All New Square properties would have access to
bin stores. All bin types would be provided ie black and green. This was policy
compliant. 27)
New Square bins would be collected
from Elm Street. So communal bins may be introduced for New Square. 28)
All units were expected to have
adequate private amenity space. 29)
Cycle parking was policy compliant with one
space per bedroom. The Applicant could look at providing more including space
for cargo bikes. 30)
Would check bike storage
arrangements on New Square. 31)
The tree near no. 97 would be
removed. Bird and bat boxes would be provided, as would pockets of green space
along Elm Street. It would be reviewed if fruit trees would be located in
larger gardens. 32)
Visitor permits were controlled by the County
Council. 33)
Would clarify with the Applicant on the number
of visitor permits that could be issued. Residents were entitled to 100 days
parking per year. 34)
Would leave it to the Highways Agency to
comment on parking issues. The application was policy compliant. 35)
There was a discrepancy in
submitted plans, 2 cars could not pass each other on Elm Street. 36)
Will liaise with College if garage
provision could be offered on another part of the College estate. The College
owned land around the site. 37)
Alleys in the site would remain communal in
perpetuity. The College (as land owner) would ensure communal areas were not
sold off with houses as part of permitted development. 38)
The application would not alter
the pavement width on Elm Street, but drop kerbs would be removed. 39)
The accommodation was C3 class for Fellows and
private residents, not students. 40)
The application was compliant with
Policy 51. 41)
No laybys were planned for delivery vehicles. 42)
A traffic management plan
requirement was expected as part of planning conditions. 43)
The Conservation Officer supported
including chimneys as part of a building ventilation system. Chris Senior answered as follows in response to Members’ questions and
comments: 44)
Details on the planting scheme could be
submitted as part of the submission to demonstrate what would be practicable. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent 45)
The proposed development was high quality,
sustainable and complied with national planning policy. It had been designed to
have no negative impact on residential amenity. 46)
Consultation had been undertaken. 47)
Undertook to review issues raised in the DCF.
Would discuss the provision of a layby in Elm Street with the Applicant. Also
Councillor Porrer’s request for clarification on how the level of amenity space
provided was policy compliant. 48)
The application should reduce the number of
vehicle movements in Elm Street. Summing up by the
Petitioners 49)
The Kite Area was tightly packed, it was hard
to fit in anymore growth. 50)
Reiterated concerns:
i.
Garages (to be removed) were used to store
cars. Their loss was a concern.
ii.
Overlooking and overdevelopment of
site.
iii.
Safety concern due to narrowness
of road and lack of passing space. Queried accuracy of drawings showing two
cars could pass. 51)
Asked for two storey building height to be
reduced. 52)
Queried if visitors to the area were
prioritised over residents. Final Comments of
the Chair 53)
The Chair observed the following: · Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties. · Application
to be considered at a future Planning Committee. |