Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: Item 6: Pre-app Developer Briefing - NIAB site - withdrawn
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Smart. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
To follow. Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 21 October 2020 were approved as a
correct record. |
|||||||
20/02569/REM - Phase 1B, Marleigh, Land North of Newmarket Road, Cambridge PDF 931 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received a reserved matters
application as part of Phase 1B pursuant to condition 5 (Reserved Matters) of
outline planning permission S/2682/13/OL dated 30 November 2016 (EIA
Development) for detailed access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for
the creation of 308 new homes, non-residential floor space, laying out of
playing fields, open space, allotments, associated infrastructure and internal
roads. The Principal Planner updated her report by referring
to the following details in her presentation: RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve planning
permission of reserved matters application reference 20/02569/REM, subject to
conditions and informatives set out from Page 48 of the Agenda, subject to amended
condition 21 (road levels) as set out on the Amendment Sheet, with authority delegated to officers to undertake
appropriate minor amendments of those conditions and informatives prior
to issue of the planning permission. 2.
Approve the partial discharge of the outline
planning conditions listed on Page 47 of the Agenda as they relate to the Phase
1B application proposals. Mr Cobley (Applicant’s
Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in response
to the report. i.Queried
if sufficient cycle parking was provided on site, particularly near the
football field. ii.Queried
if there would be conflict between vehicles, cycles, e-scooters and pedestrians
travelling around the site; and if routes should be segregated. iii.Queried
if appropriate levels of affordable housing were provided. In response to Members’ questions the Assistant
Director and Principal Planner said the following: Principle of
Development / Context of Site, Design and External Spaces / Housing Delivery
i.
The outline application and existing s106 Aagreement for the development set affordable housing provision for the whole development. The viability
assessment set the level of affordable housing at 30% for the whole site (this
could not be changed at a reserved
matters stage). ii.
The site aimed to be a sustainable community that encouraged
bike/pedestrian access/movement over cars. iii.
The parameter
plans approved at outline stage, including the movement and access parameter plan set out high level principles for the development of the site. Further detail was provided in the reserved matters applications. iv.
Pedestrians could still access the woods through the courtyard squares, there was no impact on
permeability through the alternative courtyard configuration. v.
Routes into the woods were accessible for both able bodied and disabled
people. The application would meet LTN1-20 criteria. The Local Highways Engineer made the
following points:
vi.
The site (layout) would reduce vehicle speed and encourage cycle/pedestrian
movements as envisioned in LTN1-20. vii.
The highway could be safely used by cycles and vehicles due to the predicted numbers of cars. Higher numbers of pedestrian/cycle
movements were expected around the site. The Assistant
Director and Principal Planner said the following: viii. The hierarchy of access routes included segregated routes for pedestrians, cycles and vehicles eg primary routes and the highway and some shared spaces occurred on tertiary ... view the full minutes text for item 20/16/JDCC |
|||||||
North West Cambridge: Eddington Phase 2 Infrastructure PDF 9 MB Minutes: Councillor Baigent left the
committee and Councillor Harford joined as a Ward Councillor. The Committee received a
presentation from North West Cambridge on Eddington phase 2 Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Answers were
supplied, and comments from officers, but as this was a pre-application
presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the
intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not
recorded in these minutes. 1. Asked whether mature tree specimens would be included in the new
planting scheme along the border with the M11, to improve the look of
Eddington, and when this planting would take place. 2. Requested details of what is currently located in the vicinity of the
junction with Huntingdon Road and what the anticipated impact on traffic of
that junction would be. 3. Will the developers be providing edible planting throughout the
landscaping? 4. When provision for older living is provided to the north of phase 2,
does the landscaping accommodate improved access for older people in just this
area or will standards for older people be carried out throughout the whole
site? 5. As the large earth mounds located behind residents on Huntingdon Road
were built up over several years, leading to extended periods of dust and noise
pollution, can we have a logistic plan for removing the soil to minimise the
length of time required and to ensure this is communicated to local residents
in advance? 6. As some residents already living on site have found noise levels from
the M11 excessive, what additional plans are in place to mitigate this issue? 7. In relation to some issues from phase 1 which have been taken into
account when planning phase 2, are developers planning to retrofit phase 1?
Specifically transition points where it is unclear where a pedestrian is moving
between a path and a road. 8. As cycling routes are designed by a range of authorities and
developers, how consistent will provision be along the length of Huntingdon
Road so cyclists don’t have to keep adjusting to different environments along
its length? 9. As the development area is on higher ground than the M11, will
mitigation measures which need to be close to the source of the noise need to
be quite tall to effectively protect those properties towards the top of the
ridge? 10. Requested a copy of the draft Environmental Management Strategy. |
|||||||
NIAB site Mixed use build to rent residential use, apart-hotel and minor commercial use Minutes: The pre-application briefing was withdrawn from the agenda and should be reported to the December 2020 committee. |