Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes: Minutes of the
meeting held on 20 January 2021 were approved as correct record and signed by
the Chair subject to the following amendments.
i.
p4
of the agenda pack: Items 1, 2 & 3 - appropriate to be written in the past
tense. ii.
p6
(vii): Misspelling of availability iii.
p7
(xv): Change flume to flue. iv.
P10
(v): Sought clarification on this sentence. The Chair advised this was what he
said at the last meeting and would stay in the minutes as recorded. Committee Manager Note: Items 1, 2 & 3
are copied from the Amendment Sheet for information at the start of the minutes
and copied as standard |
||||||||||
North East Cambridge Area - Interim Transport Approach PDF 654 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report to note concerning the County Council Transport Team’s
intended approach to the assessment and consideration of traffic and transport
impacts associated with proposed development within the North East Cambridge
(NEC) Area Action Plan (AAP). A report was
presented by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Transport Assessment Team Manager
and Principal Transport Officer, Transport Assessment
Team. In response to
Member’s questions on trip budget enforcement the Transport Assessment Manager
and Principal Transport Officer said the following:
i.
Acknowledged
the need for significantly improved transport facilities for the NEC area prior
to the completion of the development set out in the NEC AAP.
ii.
Developments
would need to demonstrate how they could meet the objectives set out in the
County’s Transport Position Statement.
iii.
Long
term, further transport infrastructure would be required to realise the sustainability
of the area. Developments would be broken down and a monitor and manage
approach taken. iv.
The trip
budget would be in place and monitoring would begin at the start of a
development.
v.
If it
were noted that trips had started to increase, this would be brought to the
attention of the developer and they would be advised that the trend needed to
reduce. Additional measures could be introduced, and the travel plan
intensified to reverse a possible breach. vi.
If the
trip budget was irreversibly breached, then subsequent phases may be held back.
vii.
Large master plan areas would be broken down
into smaller parcels. If a developer were failing to perform against the trip
budget, they would not be allowed to continue beyond the parcel being
developed. viii.
Monitoring
information such as the ability to track vehicles through automatic number
plate recognition and the location of cameras on the entry and exit points of
the development would be possible. ix.
The
Alconbury Weald development was an example of the monitor and manage approach
which is a development of 5,000 dwellings broken down into smaller phases.
Phase 1 comprising approximately 800 houses. As the subsequent phase(s) of the
development were looked at the data would be based on the travel habits
established on site so there was a much more educated and refined view towards
Phase 2.
x.
There
had been instances at Alconbury Weald where a specific junction would be
monitored in future. If development trips had gone over a trigger point
pre-agreed mitigation would be required and had been delivered. xi.
Lessons
had been learnt on the monitor and manage approach from developments such as
Alconbury Weald. The monitoring technology had improved which allowed a greater
understanding of when and why the trip patterns were emerging. This has led to
a more effective response from officers. xii.
The
developers in the area were working to produce a shared transport strategy for
the area, with support from the local authority officers. Advised any
recommendation provided by the Highways Authority to the planning authority
would have considered the merits of the application about the Transport
Position Statement. The Assistant Director ... view the full minutes text for item 21/17/JDCC |
||||||||||
Marleigh Phase 2 Minutes: The Committee
received a presentation on the Marleigh Phase 2
development. 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.
i.
Voiced
concern that play equipment had been placed close to the Sustainable Drainage
System (SuDS).
ii.
Enquired
what source of data was being used for the SuDs. The
data should be the most up to date. One Member requested a meeting with the
developers and officers to discuss this matter further.
iii.
Asked if
the SuDs were all intended as open swale or if there
were to be underground tanks.
iv.
Expressed
unease at the use of valley gutters between the houses. These could become
blocked with leaves and overflow with heavy rain. It was possible heavy snow
could cause these to collapse and asked if these issues had been addressed.
v.
Stated
it was a design responsibility to ensure that maintenance could be undertaken
on valley gutters by the occupier.
vi.
Described
the buildings as ‘boxy’, all the same and not inspiring. vii.
Questioned
if there were plans for the flat roof buildings, such as solar panels or green
roofs. viii.
Queried
if the open spaces were accessible to young people and asked where they would
play.
ix.
Advised
that the green spaces between the apartment buildings could be in the shade.
This could lead to the space being difficult to maintain and that they could
become cold and damp spaces; the higher the buildings the more problematic this
could be.
x.
Challenged
the term ‘city’ in the location description as the development was in a more
urban area closer to Newmarket Road.
xi.
Enquired
if there was any indoor community space or if this was
just in Phase 1; could indoor workspace be considered? xii.
Noted in
Phase 1 there was a crescent overlooking a green space which offered an
architectural feature of interest. Suggested softer solutions rather than
90-degree right angles for Phase 2. |
||||||||||
Eddington Lots S1/S2 Minutes: The Committee received a presentation on
Eddington Lots S1/S2 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.
i.
Asked
what level of the UK Code of Sustainable Homes would be reached.
ii.
Would
like further information regarding safety in the community.
iii.
Would
like to see fewer cars on site and the design should encourage car sharing.
iv.
Noted
the cohesion for living and leisure but asked if there were any opportunities
for working on the development.
v.
Asked
for examples of completed developments that Present Made had been involved
with.
vi.
Queried
how the site would be managed by a company who were not local to the
development. vii.
Asked
what plans were in place to ensure those living on the development would be
part of the whole community of Eddington and not a sub-community. viii.
Questioned
what level of affordable housing would be provided.
ix.
Asked if
there was provision for community space between S1/S2.
x.
Enquired
if there was provision for the retirement community.
xi.
Queried
if the trees would grow in certain locations on the development. |