Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Email: democratic.services@cambridge.gov.uk
Note: 18 August 2021 JDCC minutes included by mistake, these were agreed at the 27 October 2021 meeting. Please ignore p3-4.
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor M Smart, Cllr Gawthrope-Wood attended as the alternate. Apologies were received from Councillor Hawkins, Cllr Fane attended as the alternate. Apologies were received from Councillor Bygott. Apologies were received from Councillor Thornburrow, Councillor Scutt attended as the alternate. * Committee Manager note: Councillor Thornburrow arrived for
item 21/59/JDCC |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Minutes: The Committee
received the following applications:
i.
S/1355/17/FL
– Land Immediately West Of The Electricity Pylon And Foul Pump Station Histon
Road Impington.
ii.
07/0003/NMA2 – Land Between Huntingdon Road
And Histon Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB3 0LE.
iii.
S/0001/07/NMA1
– Land Immediately West Of The Electricity Pylon And Foul Pump Station Histon
Road Impington. Mr Asa Chittock addressed the Committee in support of the application on
behalf of the applicant. The Principal Planner introduced the application. In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director and Principal
Planner said the following:
i.
A tree
survey provided by the applicant did not reflect the change made during the
course of the application to discharge the pond on the western side and not the
northern side.
ii.
An
updated tree implication assessment had been requested through condition with
tree protection measures.
iii.
Suggested
there would likely be a loss of one or two of the trees on the boundary.
iv.
The
application did not provide an alternative proposal for the original pond
location site. This land now formed part of the Darwin Green 2 & 3 site
allocations for which there is no outline consent.
v.
Pre-application
conversations concerning an outline consent for Darwin Green 2 & 3 are
taking place between the relevant parties. The applicant will present their
proposals to the Committee early next year when there will be an opportunity to
discuss and influence the proposals.
vi.
The
relocation of the balancing pond had first been discussed in 2015, as the
allocation of Darwin Green 2 & 3 sites moved forward through the South
Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan process. vii.
The
relocation of the pond had been administered in parallel with the reserved
matters proposals brought forward within Darwin Green 1. viii.
Noted
the Committee’s comments about the potential loss of open space should houses
be placed on the original pond location site. These concerns could be dealt
with as the Darwin Green 2 & 3 development come forward through the
pre-application process. Members could provide a very clear and strong steer to
the developer team with their views on open space and what should be provided.
ix.
Referenced
paragraph 8 of the Officer’s report which outlined the history of the
application. The original balancing pond had received consent though full
planning permission granted by South Cambridgeshire District Council. This
included an access road and the consent remained extant.
x.
The
current proposal was for a revised full planning application for the balancing
pond’s relocation.
xi.
The
application is an important and essential part of the infrastructure of Darwin
Green 1. The drainage infrastructure would also support the development moving
forward while the proposals for Darwin Green 2 & 3 were under discussion. xii. The site of the original balancing pond is already within the Darwin Green 2 & 3 site allocation and currently not Green Belt land. This site allocation includes the provision of up to 1000 homes and whether development is located on that site is still to be determined through an planning ... view the full minutes text for item 21/57/JDCC |
|||||||
Eddington Lot 4 (Hill) PDF 7 MB Minutes: The
Committee received a Developer presentation on Eddington Lot 4 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 were binding on either the
intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently were not
recorded in these minutes. i.
Queried the dimension size of the back gardens
for the three and four bed properties. ii.
Questioned the location and size of the main
open space on site. iii.
Asked if there was enough bike storage on site
for the entire development. iv.
Enquired as to what extent had the plans changed
to accommodate the new National Planning Policy Framework. v.
Suggested that more detail was required on the
landscaping of the site. vi.
Doubted if the bike storage was sufficient to
park cargo bikes in sufficient numbers. vii.
Suggested there should be a green open space for
each apartment. viii.
Asked what sustainable planting, particularly
trees, would be used on site. ix.
Expressed concern at the removal of individual
bike storage on the properties. x.
Asked if dogs would be permitted on the green
open spaces. xi.
The application should promote active travel,
yet a third of the space on site was allocated to car parking. xii.
The provision of a cycle policy should be
considered to ensure cycles paths were accessible and would encourage active
travel. xiii.
Suggested there should be a cycle space per
individual and not per bedroom. xiv.
Suggested a net zero construction on site would
be welcome. xv.
Advised provision for electric vehicle charging
points. xvi.
Welcomed the change of colour on the buildings. xvii.
Should consider the installation of heating
systems which could be reversed to a cooling system when required; the top
floor flats could get very hot. xviii.
Asked what active play provision for children
would be on site. xix.
Queried what fossil fuels would be used. xx.
Suggested there were some planning elements
which were last century and should be updated. |