Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Election results by party > Declarations > Document > 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 had been received from Councillors Baigent, Dryden and Young. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Application and Petition Details (24/01354/FUL - 137 and 143 Histon Road) Application No: 24/01354/FUL Site Address: 137 and 143 Histon Road Description: Erection of 70 dwellings including
access, car parking, cycle storage, substation, landscaping and associated
works. Applicant: Hill Agent: Carter Jonas LLP Address: One Station Square
Cambridge CB1 2GA Lead Petitioner: Resident of Canterbury
Street, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 3QF Case Officer:
Aaron Coe Text of Petition: Title: Save Histon Road Playground Statement: We the undersigned petition the council
forego their plans to create any form of new access points whatsoever into the
Histon Road Children’s Recreation Ground (henceforth ‘HRCRG’) from the proposed
development at 137-143 Histon Road (henceforth ‘The Development’). Whilst we do
not object to the building of houses on the land in principle, we take
objection to the access points being created to offset green space and amenity
land. Justification: 1. The
planning concerns are the following: Safety: At
present the children’s playground is a safe, intimate space for the local
community. Any public access point(s), cutting across it, creates a
thoroughfare which shall impact negatively on the safety of the children. One
of the advantages of the way the HRCRG is landscaped is that the long wooded
area along the northern border is an unique adventure “jungle” that children
can disappear into without their parents worrying that they can emerge onto
city streets or wander into traffic. Any access points compromise this. Pollution:
both traffic and light pollution. There are 53 allocated car parking spaces
within the development, with the very likelihood of rising to 70+ cars based
and parking in the area. That is not to mention the visitors vehicles, the
delivery trucks, the food vans, and the Deliveroo motorbikes. Flooding.
Development, as we know, causes severe flooding issues. As we already have
drainage problems in the park, any significant development will likely
negatively impact existing properties around the park (particularly Canterbury
Close, Canterbury Street, and part of Richmond Road) by flooding. Loss of
amenity land. Creating access points into a children’s playground is a cynical
and immoral act and sets a terrifying precedent to incorporate public land for
the sake of offsetting amenity land, which should be calculated within any
proposed development site from the start. Developers should make and contribute
their own green spaces - as well as children’s play areas, rather than poach
them from the existing community. Protected
space. HRCRG is within the Castle and Victoria Road Conservation Area and is
listed as one of Cambridgeshire’s green spaces that property developers cannot
touch:
Pressure on local infrastructure. The Development puts pressure on local infrastructure such as doctors’ surgeries and schools before the area has been prepared for it. 111 secondary school children are ... view the full agenda text for item 24/3/DCF Minutes: Case by Applicant 1) The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP)
was a partnership between the City Council and Hill (as Developer), which was established
in 2017. The aim of the partnership was to deliver high quality council homes,
market homes and community facilities. CIP had delivered over 600 new council
homes. 2) CIP had contributed £8million in section 106
contributions, which supported local amenities and services. 3) CIP was an investment partnership between the
Council and Hill which created a financial return to the Council. 4) The development proposed to deliver 70 new
homes in the area with 28 affordable homes for the council. 5) The site formed the majority of allocation
‘R2’ in the Local Plan, which was allocated to deliver new housing. 6) Local Plan Policy and paragraphs 123 and 128
of the National Planning Policy Framework required the efficient use of
brownfield sites. 7) Planned to deliver a high quality and
efficient development on the site. 8)
In the context of delivering open space, the Applicant had considered
Local Plan Policy 68. The Policy promoted the provision of open space on-site
where possible. It acknowledged there were circumstances where it would not be
possible to deliver the full informal open space requirement. Believed this
site fell within this category due to the sustainable location and referred to
the importance of making the most of brownfield sites for affordable and market
housing delivery. Consideration also needed to be given to the sites other
characteristics including the retention of trees and to respect the
relationship with existing neighbouring homes. 9) The site aimed to deliver 40% affordable
housing. 10) The site adjoined Histon Road Recreation
Ground (HRRG). 11) The Applicant sought to maximise the quality
of open space on the site. An attractive green link to the HRRG was proposed.
The application proposed the provision of a pocket park in the centre of the
development which would serve as informal open space for sitting out and
promoting general wellbeing and community interaction. 12) The application did not propose to provide an
expansive area of on-site open space suited to more formal recreational
purposes. There was already open space at HRRG. 13) In agreement with Officers the deficit of
provision of open space on-site was proposed to be addressed by enhancements to
the HRRG. The delivery and on-going management of open space provision would be
secured through the Section 106 Agreement in accordance with Local Plan Policy
68. 14) The development would make contributions
towards local infrastructure including healthcare and schools through the
Section 106 Agreement to mitigate the impacts of the development. 15) CIP engagement with residents included: a.
Website created 17 November 2023 b.
In person consultation event on 27 November 2023 which 45 people
attended. c.
Virtual consultation event on 28 November 2023. d.
1000 flyers posted to residents and 52 responses to the consultation
were received. 66% of responses supported / strongly supported the principle of
redevelopment and 72% who supported / strongly supported the creation of
attractive routes through the development and the provision of accessible cycle
storage. e.
When the application was submitted there were concerns expressed about
connections to the HRRG and the new development. A public meeting was held on
23 May 2024 which over 70 people attended.
16) A summary of the key issues raised included: a. Concerns regarding the creation of links
through the development. b. Concerns about safety at the play area
resulting from the new access points. c. Impact of new development on local
infrastructure. d. Anti-social behaviour in the area. e. Support for the sustainability aspects of the
scheme. f. Recognised the importance of the provision of
affordable housing. 17) Before the application was submitted CIP was
involved in 16 meeting with Planning Officers. The application was revised
before being formally submitted to the council to ensure it was policy
compliant. 18) The link to the HRRG was seen as important: a. to promote permeability and sustainable
travel to the site; and b. social cohesion. 19) The original application proposed two new
pedestrian access points to HRRG. The revised application proposed one
pedestrian access link to the HRRG and removed the central access point. 20) The current access to HRRG had poor
visibility and access was directly onto a main road. 21) The retained new access to HRRG would be a
safe new route to HRRG onto a quiet secondary street, which was like the other
access points onto HRRG. 22) The former central access was now proposed to
become a pocket park, providing a visual connection to HRRG and would provide
green space in the development to provide relief from the bulk form and serve
as an informal sitting out space. It did not seek to provide open space suited
to recreation as this was already available at HRRG. 23) The new access was proposed to be flanked by
shrub planting and a line of trees. No new gates were proposed into the play
area within the HRRG, so the way to access the play space remained the same. 24) Responses to changes requested in the
petition: a. A new link to the HRRG had been seen as an
opportunity for this site. Responding to concerns raised only one new access to
the HRRG was now proposed. b. As an allocated brownfield site within the
Local Plan, the application needed to provide housing at an appropriate
density. c. Local Plan Policy 68 didn’t require a play
area to be provided on site. The duplication of play areas wasn’t suitable. d. Planting trees along the boundary wasn’t
consistent with the ‘Secure by Design’ Policy. e. The site was an allocated site for housing
with the current Local Plan. 25) Benefits of the scheme included: a. Section 106 contributions towards local
amenities and services. b. 28 new affordable homes. c. Uplift in biodiversity. d. Increased connectivity. e. 70 new energy efficient homes. Case by Petitioners 26)
CIP had proposed the creation of access points
into, and thus annex, part of the HRRG. This went against original covenants in
place on the land from 1886 and the original reason for purchase. 27)
Cambridge City Council minutes from 1932 stated
that ‘it was the only available site in the neighbourhood for a children’s
recreation ground for which there was a growing need in the district.’ 28)
Green spaces were being swallowed up by developers
for the benefit of overseas investors and those with property portfolios. 29)
Children needed open space for physical and mental
wellbeing. In creating access points to the HRRG, CIP were slicing off and
segregating part of the children’s play area. It was not for Hill to say how
children should play. Children needed hidden paths, secret dens, blackberry
bushes and muddy puddles to spark their imagination. 30)
Believed the developers were being greedy. Did not
feel that the Applicant had provided responses to their Solicitor’s letter. The
scheme was a greedy attempt to get more development and cut out open space.
Green space could be provided on site, but the developer was choosing not to
provide it. The local community should not have to suffer; needed the Planning
Committee to protect them. 31)
CIP’s proposal to make redundant a well-used area
of scrubland and loss of area of the playground for an access point was
unacceptable. CIP said the reconfiguration of the railings would provide a more
welcoming route. A significant part of the playground would be lost. The play
area spanned the full length of the HRRG. The woodland section would become
inaccessible and cut off from the main section. Referred to the revised plan
and noted that there should be no impact at all. 32)
There would be a loss of amenity i.e.: the football
/ basketball pitch which would significantly reduce the enjoyment of the pitch
and render it unusable. Residents without garden space of their own relied
heavily on this area. The proposals would prevent free movement in the area. 33)
Landscaping. CIP claimed that the western access
route to HRRG had been removed – however on the illustrative landscape master
plan, there was a path running south of the development towards the west which
if constructed would bisect the current recreation area. A landscaped path
within the recreation area runs to meet railed fencing. Looked like the
developer was biding their time to create access points in the future. 34)
CIP was going against the City Council’s
Biodiversity Survey from 2021, which stated that there should be no further
tree planting in the recreation ground but selected felling and replacement
within the woodland areas. Wildflowers should be allowed to grow in the corners
and they required sunlight. CIP’s bio-enhancement plans included planting trees
and bulbs, which would mean the removal of an existing biodiversity feature and
included the loss of amenity grassland. The Biodiversity Survey included plans
which supported the Petitioner’s position and not the Developer’s. 35)
The Council was aware of the statutory requirement
for 10% biodiversity net gain. Schedule 7A within the Environment Act 2021 set
out the tiered priority for the provision of biodiversity net gain. The first
priority was for on-site provision. The application currently proposed less
than the required 10% biodiversity net gain. 36)
Believed CIP was not respecting the community and
was just exploiting what was there. Referred to a cover letter from CIP which
had not responded to questions asked by the community. Quoted the Applicant as saying,
‘The proposed development did not seek to provide readily accessible on-site
open space’. Commented that as the HRRG was already readily accessible new
access points to it were not required. 37)
CIP stated that the plans were not final, and they
were seeking an ‘in principle’ approval. Final details would be agreed
later. 38)
Did not feel that the community would be involved
in any future discussions. Referred to the scale of opposition to the proposed
new access points. Asked the Applicant to remove all access points to HRRG. Case Officer’s comments: 39)
The planning application was received on 10 April
2024 and validated on 19 April 2024. 40)
Neighbours and statutory consultees were notified
and consulted on the application 22 April 2024. 41)
Several site notices were displayed on streets
surrounding the application site and within the recreation ground on 29 April
2024. 42)
The original consultation period expired on 23 May
2024. 43)
To date 102 representations have been received. 44)
The representations consisted of 98 objections, 1
letter in support and 3 neutral comments. 45)
A number of technical objections had been received
during the course of the application and the applicants submitted a revised
package of information to address these issues. 46)
The current consultation period on the revised
application would expire on the 31 July 2024. 47)
The Applicants had engaged with officers through
the pre-application process. The scheme had been presented to the Greater
Cambridge Design Review Panel at pre application stage and a pre-application
briefing to Planning Committee members had also taken place. 48)
Noted a number of issues had been raised including
open space, biodiversity net gain and infrastructure. Comments from Councillor Payne (Castle Ward
Councillor) 49)
Noted that this application
did not just affect Arbury Ward. The petition had been submitted by a Castle
Ward resident. 50)
Noted that the only
resident’s association which had been engaged with was Histon Road Area
Residents Association. 51)
Ward Councillors Payne
and Nestor had had to ask for a briefing from officers which had not been
delivered until September 2023. 52)
Noted that some residents
who would be impacted by the proposals had not been consulted with and
therefore public opinion was quite stressed. 53)
Believed a compromise was
possible. People who lived around the site wanted easy access to the HRRG
without accessing it from Histon Road, but access points should not devalue the
space. 54)
Supported point 4 in the
petition - the inclusion of a row of trees - to protect residents’ from
overlooking. 55)
The application did not
comply with the requirements of the Local Plan as it did not provide the
required level of open space. The decision to depart from Local Plan policy
based on the provision of 60-70 dwellings wasn’t enough. Was concerned about a
precedent being set. Comments from Councillor S.Smith
(Castle Ward Councillor) 56)
The first exhibition on
the application had been held at the end of November 2023. 57)
Objected to a path
through the secure play area. Had used the play area in the past; it was a
much-loved play area. 58)
Had taken concerns
regarding the development to the CIP Board. 59)
Was pleased that the
access which had dissected the play area had been removed. 60)
Believed that a balance
needed to be struck between the interests of existing and future residents.
Future residents would query why they were not provided with direct access to
HRRG and why they had to walk down Histon Road to access the HRRG. 61)
Noted that anti-social
behaviour took place on HRRG and a footpath through the area should discourage
this. Members’ questions and comments: 62) Queried whether there
was a planning policy regarding access points from new development to existing
spaces. The Case Officer advised that the Applicant
had undertaken pre-application discussions with them and that access to the
HRRG was a key issue. The Urban Design Team, Landscape Architect and the Case
Officer had promoted the new access points. In local and national planning
policy there were requirements regarding permeability and connectivity between
new development proposals and existing spaces. The developer was encouraged to
include new access points. The community had commented against the inclusion of
new access points. Weight had been given to these comments and therefore the
number of new access point had been reduced to one. 63) Asked where the new
access point was proposed and what existing desire lines there were. The Applicant advised that they had looked at
where desire routes currently were. Noted that there were access points from
the east, south and west but there was no access onto the HRRG from the north.
Therefore, the application sought to create an access point to the HRRG from
the north of the site. The Applicant advised that in discussion with
the City Council’s Access Officer that weighted gates were proposed on the new
access route in response to concerns regarding e-bikes and scooters. The
Applicant noted concerns raised that the weighted gates were not disability
accessible complaint and would take this away to review. The Petitioner commented that anyone buying a
property on the site should purchase it as is, it shouldn’t come at a cost to
the existing community. Suggested that railings be installed along the pavement
on Histon Road. Commented that there were drug deals taking place at HRRG
daily; residents reported this to the Police and the City Council, and nothing
was done about it. 64) Commented that amenity
concerns for existing residents was easier to see / understand than for future
residents but the consideration of amenity for future residents was a critical
part of the planning application process. The compromise access (i.e.: one new
access point) to the HRRG was better than what had been originally proposed.
Noted the Applicant had mentioned that there was scope for discussion regarding
comments by residents in relation to a natural woodland. The Case Officer
commented that open space enhancements proposed were indicative at this stage.
Off-site provision (i.e.: proposed enhancements to the HRRG) would be secured
through a Section 106 Agreement as the land did not fall within the planning
application ‘red line’ site. Local Plan Policy 68 was the relevant policy to
consider regarding open space provision. With the HRRG on the doorstep of the
development it would be illogical not to provide access to the HRRG for future
residents. The Applicant commented
that they had considered the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed
development. Local Plan Policy 68 provided that in certain circumstances
informal open space could be provided off-site. The site also provided the
ability to connect the site to the HRRG. Local Plan Policies encouraged
connections to existing facilities. The Petitioner referred
to the recent Open Spaces Survey which stated that there was no surplus of open
space in Arbury and Castle wards. There was no surplus green open space for new
residents in these areas. There was space within the development to provide
on-site open space, but the Applicant had chosen not to. Believed the Applicant
had no respect for the community and was prioritising profit. The Delivery Manager
commented that when the application came to Planning Committee; profit and
greed were not material planning considerations. 65)
Asked whether it was possible to bring forward a
smaller development with a play area on site or whether the development could
build higher flats to enable a play area to be provided. The Case Officer
commented that these issues would be weighed up in the planning balance and the
assessment of the application. The site was immediately adjacent to the HRRG.
The site proposed to deliver 40% affordable housing this needed to be weighed up
against the provision of open space. All statutory consultees would provide
comments on the application. The Applicant advised
that the design started with a blank slate. There were a number of urban design
considerations. The site was long and narrow and the impact on neighbouring
properties had been considered. The only suitable area for higher density residential
development was facing Histon Road. Lower density terrace housing had been
proposed towards the rear of the site. Wanted to make the most efficient use of
the site with the provision of affordable housing. Proposed to use an element
of off-site provision for open space in accordance with Local Plan Policy 68 to
enhance existing facilities. The Petitioner commented
that the proposed development was not providing maximum benefits in terms of
infrastructure other than maximising the number of houses. Did not believe the
Applicant had answered why the application wasn’t delivering its own play area. 66)
Asked whether the application should have its own
play area and whether it was possible to provide a play area on the site. Noted
commercial viability may have to be looked at.
The Applicant commented
that viability was a consideration. It was unfair to refer to greed. Developing
the site as a CIP site meant the Council had a vested interest in bringing the
application forward in the best way possible. There were a number of competing
objectives, housing was a key component of the development as was whether to
deliver a new play area on the site or not. Having the HRRG adjacent to the
site was a key consideration. A play area could be provided on site however
this would impact on other aspects of the development i.e.: drainage. The
development sought to be sensitive to the area and had tried to make the best
use of assets whilst delivering sustainable housing. 67)
Asked what type of affordable housing would be
delivered within the 40% affordable housing proposed. Noted reference to the
'Secure by Design' Policy and that there was a balance to be struck between
protecting residents privacy versus having ‘eyes on the street’. Asked if low
hedges could be planted instead of the line of trees requested by the
petitioners as this might be a compromise and also deter anti-social behaviour
/ drug dealing taking place. Noted that HRRG provided good facilities for older
children but that younger / disabled children could benefit from more
facilities being provided. The Applicant commented
that the affordable housing types had been discussed with the Council’s Housing
Officers. The pocket park would provide a sitting out area; noted concerns
about the surrounding area. The open space was designed to be overlooked but
also to protect residents’ privacy. The detail regarding proposed enhancements
to the HRRG would be included within the Section 106 Agreement. There was scope
to improve the play space facilities for all users. The proposed pocket park
within the development was informal open space with a buffer towards the back
which would be a good environment for younger children. The Petitioner commented
that they didn’t think adequate responses had been given by the Applicant and
they had used viability as a justification not to provide facilities for
example on-site open space and / or play area. Asked if the viability information
would be made available for residents to see as they wanted to see how tight
the profit margins were. Queried how providing a play area on-site would affect
drainage. The Programme Manager advised
that the provision of a play area on-site would impact the way the proposal had
been designed. Drainage was only one example of an impact there would be
others. The Delivery Manager
advised that further information regarding the provision of a small play area
on-site would be provided outside of the meeting. Summing up by the Applicant 68)
Access points to HRRG had been reduced to one. 69)
This was seen as an opportunity to imbed the site
within the community. 70)
Sought to use the brownfield site, which was in a
sustainable location as efficiently as possible. Delivery of affordable housing
was a key aspect of the scheme. 71)
In terms of open space provision, the proposal was
compliant with Local Plan Policy 68. Contributions to other infrastructure
would be made through the Section 106 Agreement. Summing up by the Petitioner 72)
Referred to the e-petition which was against any
access points to the HRRG which had 136 signatures. 73)
Was not against development but was against access
points from the development to HRRG, which was one of Cambridgeshire’s
protected green spaces and was under covenant as a safe space for children. 74)
The HRRG should not be compromised for an access
point; a play area should be provided on-site. 75)
CIP had made plans, and they did not want to change
them. 76)
The Applicant had assumed that open space and
biodiversity net gain could be delivered off-site in the HRRG. 77)
Asked the Applicant to go back to the drawing board
and get rid of the access points on to HRRG. Final Comments of the Chair 78) The notes of the
Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties, published on the council’s website and appended to
the Planning Officers report. 79) The Planning Case
Officer would contact the Applicants/Agent after the meeting to discuss the
outcome of the meeting and to follow up any further action that is necessary. 80) The Applicant was
encouraged to keep in direct contact with the Petitioners and to seek their
views on any proposed amendment/s. 81) The Council would follow
its normal neighbour notification procedures on any amendments to the
application. 82) The application would be
considered at a future Planning Committee. 83) Along with other
individuals who may have made representations on the application, the
Petitioners’ representatives would be informed of the date of the meeting at
which the application would be considered by Committee and of their public
speaking rights. 84) The committee report would
be publicly available five clear days before the Committee meeting. |