Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from City Councillor Thornburrow, Councillor D Baigent attended as an alternate.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

The Committee received a report referring to the applications which sought discharge of condition 9 for the site wide design code of outline planning permission 18/0481/OUT and S/1231/18/OL for up to 1200 residential dwellings (including retirement living facility), a local centre, primary and secondary schools, community facilities, open spaces, allotments, landscape and associated infrastructure.

Mr David Fletcher (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee raised the following comments in response to the Officer’s presentation and report:

      i.         Asked if Officers could be more detailed in how the residential units would be numbered; way finding could be added.

    ii.         Requested that an electricity supply be installed to the open square, so power could be offered to community events / markets being run from this space; also access to water supply would be beneficial. 

   iii.         Would like to have car club referenced in the design code

  iv.         Queried whether the 800 houses which would trigger the building of a recycling point was for units built or units sold / occupied.

    v.         Enquired why all the site roads/footpaths were not being adopted; this could lead to the freeholder charging leaseholders for the resulting estate management costs over which the leaseholders would little oversight or control.

  vi.         Concerned about the long-term management / maintenance of the site

 vii.         Requested further detail on the management company and how this would operate; the impact this could have on the site over the long term needed to be seriously considered.

viii.         Questioned if Cambridge City Council would be responsible for all the green areas on site, even those within the boundary of South Cambridgeshire District Council.

  ix.         Highlighted the importance of being aware of local government boundaries when working on the detailed design; this would affect residents’ council tax according to which local authority administrative boundary there were in.

    x.         There should be some indication to potential buyers which local authority would be responsible for the area in which they lived in.

  xi.         Thanked the Officers, Designers and Developers for their collaboration in working to improve the quality of application.

 xii.         Questioned if additional access points were required due to the quantity of roads leading to the primary street as all traffic would currently leave at the eastern and western ends.

xiii.         Asked for further information on movement and access of the site concerning vehicles and cyclists.

xiv.          Welcomed the permeability to Cherry Hinton village.

xv.         Requested further information on the location of the post boxes on site.

xvi.         Asked for clear definition on the use of the terms ‘must’ and ‘should’ throughout the document.

xvii.         Enquired who owned the copyright of the design code document.

xviii.         Suggested a clear definition of term ‘fabric first’ was required and asked how this would be tested during the design process.

xix.         Recommended that the separation for movement and access for cycling and pedestrian should be made clearer.

xx.         Requested further information on the management of cycle and pathways throughout the build-out process and how they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/37/JDCC

Proposed new Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital building

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied with comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers and/or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently they are not recorded in these minutes.

Councillors Scutt, Stobart and R Williams gave apologies for absence for this item.

      i.         Enquired how the transport connectivity would be dealt with, including buses.

    ii.         Requested further information on the use of the tunnel connecting to the hospital: would like clarification that it was free of water.

   iii.         Asked if more details could be provided for the ground floor courtyard; would there be sufficient light and ventilation.

  iv.         Asked for additional information about energy management and building services; how would this be an effective space and ensure energy flow?

    v.         Questioned the use of grey water on site.

  vi.         Queried what would be the expected volume of patients and staff on site and how the sustainable travel needs would be met.

 vii.         Expressed interest in the long views of the building shown in the presentation and wanted to know more; what would be the impact on the views concerning the plant on the roof.

viii.         Queried if the developers had anticipated using passive cooling from the ground source on site.

  ix.         Asked if there was a roof garden which could be used by staff and patients.

Reserved Matters application for 160 market dwellings, landscaping, access parking and other associated infrastructure

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied with comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers and/or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently they are not recorded in these minutes.

Councillors Scutt, Stobart and R Williams gave apologies for absence for this item.

      i.         Asked to explain the reasoning for the open brick frame on the four-storey apartments.

    ii.         Enquired how the shared spaces between the private space in the residential courts would be managed.

   iii.         Queried how parking would be managed on the road that ran parallel to Huntingdon Road.

  iv.         Asked if the developer had considered planting smaller trees in the first instance rather than mature large trees.

    v.         Advised further explanation of how to reduce possible overheating of the single aspect apartments was needed.

  vi.         Requested clarification if a refuse vehicle would be able to reverse down the primary routes. 

 vii.         Asked for further information on the design to break up the mono tones colour of the previous developments on site.

viii.         Noted the tertiary streets had many parking spaces which was different to the rest of the development; did not want it to become a car park and questioned how this could be stopped.

  ix.         Suggested more greenery was required on the tertiary streets.

    x.         Noted the main street was very long and straight and recommended further design should be considered to reduce the speeding of vehicles; queried how this would be manged

  xi.         Asked for further information on cargo bike parking and parking for other types of bikes.

 xii.         Expressed concern in the design from the private entrances of the residential units to the semi-private courtyards and how they would be managed.

xiii.         Questioned if the developer had thought about whether car parking was required at all for city living and if parking was required whether it should be located on the edge of the site to provide for living streets with more landscaping and bigger gardens.

xiv.         Questioned if the temperatures inside the triple aspect apartments would be liveable as global warming continued. Was this an example of planning and design above policy.

xv.         Asked what the interface was with those houses on Huntingdon Road.

xvi.         Requested further information on the youth zone.

xvii.         Asked for the junction between the access road from Eddington Avenue and the existing dual use footpath and cycleway (which runs from Storey’s Field Centre, and along the school boundary to the playing field) to privilege pedestrians and cyclists

xviii.         Noted the district heating scheme is gas fired and a timetable for phasing out the use of gas at Eddington is required

xix.         Questioned whether the Part O analysis of single aspect dwellings is rigorous enough to anticipate rising temperatures during the life of the building   

</AI6>

<TRAILER_SECTION>