Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors D.Baigent, Bygott, Hunt and Page-Croft (Councillors Gawthrope Wood and Nethsingha attended as alternates).

The Chair proposed the following amendments to the October JDCC minutes deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined:

On page 9 of the agenda:

Councillor Scutt proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative drawing the Applicant’s attention that it was their responsibility to address concerns about damage to buildings caused through tree impact on the soil as a consequence of trees being close to the buildings – soil drying out leading to subsidence etc.

At the top of page 12 of the agenda:

iv.  Ground water would be evacuated through controlled discharge from to the sewer.

On p16 of the agenda under ‘the Committee raised the following concerns in response to the Officer report’:

ii. People would have to travel past the site then double back to access it by bus or cycle. Requested an additional access point in the north west top left corner of site.

The minutes would be checked with the officers present at the meeting and then tabled at a future meeting for approval.

The Committee received a reserved matters application for fifth and sixth housing phases and Allotment 3 (collectively known as BDW5 and 6) including 411 dwellings and allotments with associated internal roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The reserved matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale related partial discharge of conditions 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 40, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 69 pursuant to outline approval 07/0003/OUT.

The Committee noted the amendments to conditions 3 and 13 and the additional condition regarding obscured glazing contained in the Amendment Sheet.

The Committee received two representations in objection to the application from local residents.

The first representation covered the following issues:

      i.         They had emailed Committee members in advance of the meeting with their concerns.

    ii.         Had met with Ray Houghton, (the Applicant’s representative) to discuss concerns and felt that the only suitable option would be to remove Plot 202 or place it elsewhere on the site as the current position would cause a detrimental and overbearing impact on the amenity of their property.

   iii.         Was disappointed that a workable solution had not been accepted.

  iv.         Plot 202 impacted on the street scene of Martingale Close.

    v.         Suggested the space vacated by Plot 202 could alternatively be used as a wildlife corridor.

  vi.         Asked that they were afforded the same rights, amenity and enjoyment as every other resident along the eastern boundary of the site.

 vii.         Asked the Committee to refuse the application due to the unacceptable overbearing impact of the development on the neighbouring properties. 

The second representation covered the following issues:

    i.            The landscape masterplan bore no resemblance to the original design which had been circulated by the developers.

  ii.            The original plans should be retained. No privacy would be protected by the new plans.

 iii.            Noted that tree canopy was important to provide benefits to residents.

iv.            Asked the Committee not to approve the application without the improvement of planting in the area.

(Ray Houghton) (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report.

      i.         The effect of Plot 202 on the residential amenity of existing properties.

    ii.         Compliance with fire safety regulations.

   iii.         Requested the removal of Permitted Development rights for above garage spaces to retain amenity space.

  iv.         Queried the landscape condition.

    v.         Queried allotment phasing.

  vi.         Queried garden size.

 vii.         Requested an amendment to condition 4 so that this referred to EV charging points not ducting.

viii.         Requested an informative regarding cargo bike parking provision for visitors and residents.

  ix.         Expressed concerns about Plot 202 and why this was a marker building.

    x.         Expressed concerns regarding Plots 197 and 312.

  xi.         Asked for clarification regarding the clustering requirements.

 xii.         Asked for clarification regarding space standards.

xiii.         Asked for the objector’s photographs to be shown to the Committee.

xiv.         Asked what community facilities would be available.

xv.         Asked if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/63/JDCC

Councillors Gawthrope Wood, Porrer and Smart weren’t present when this application was last considered at the October 2021 Committee but as the application would be considered afresh all Members in attendance could engage in the determination and vote on the application.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a new building comprising E(g) floorspace with car and cycle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The Committee noted the amendments to paragraph 7 and 126 of the Officer report and the updated recommendation detailed in the Amendment Sheet. The Principal Planning Officer also noted the main change since the item was last reported to Committee was the addition of a condition restricting access to the roof terrace.

(Ian Wright) (representing the Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report.

        i.       Queried the travel plan and asked if specific targets could be put on traffic movements.

      ii.        Asked for clarity regarding foul drainage capacity detailed in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the Officer’s report.

    iii.        Expressed concerns about the surface water drainage.

    iv.       Noted the swale was in the Green Belt.

      v.       Queried why no green roof was proposed.

    vi.       Queried landscaping.

  vii.        Expressed concern about the impact of the development on off-street parking in residential areas.

 viii.        Expressed concerns about overshadowing.

    ix.       Queried the sunlight / day assessment.

      x.       In view of the Access Officer’s comments, asked for the inclusion of a condition regarding sliding doors and a changing places cubicle.

    xi.       Queried biodiversity net gain.

  xii.        Expressed concern regarding the travel plan and thought Cherry Hinton was already at capacity. 

 xiii.        Requested an informative regarding cargo bike parking provision.

 xiv.       Asked if the cycle store could have a green or brown roof.

  xv.       Queried EV charging provision.

 xvi.       Queried how the restriction of access to the roof terraces would be monitored.

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Officer and Principal Transport Officer said the following:

        i.       The Applicant had not sought to amend the scheme but had provided extra information including a daylight / sunlight assessment.

      ii.        The Applicant had submitted further information which provided examples as to how they could meet the targets set out in the travel plan. Was comfortable that this application could meet the travel plan targets. 

    iii.        Paragraphs 80 and 81 of the Officer report clarified that Cambridge Water Recycling Centre did not have capacity to accept foul drainage but Anglian Water would be obligated if planning consent was granted to accept the foul drainage.

    iv.       Confirmed that condition 13 regarding surface water drainage could be amended to require details of parties responsibilities for long term maintenance to be submitted.

      v.       Confirmed the swale on the southern part of the site was within the Green Belt and was intended to deal with the flow from the fields. The Applicant had undertaken an infiltration assessment to check the drainage capacity of the swale.

    vi.       Officers felt the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/64/JDCC

This application could not be considered as the meeting was inquorate. Item deferred to the next meeting. 

This item could not be considered as the meeting was inquorate. Item deferred to the next meeting.