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
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors D.Baigent, Bygott, Hunt and
Page-Croft (Councillors Gawthrope Wood and Nethsingha attended as alternates). |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The Chair proposed the following amendments to the October JDCC minutes
deleted text 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 At the top of page 12 of the agenda: iv. Ground water would be
evacuated through controlled discharge 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
The minutes would be checked with the officers
present at the meeting and then tabled at a future meeting for approval. |
||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: 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 |
||||||||||||||||
20/05040/FUL - Land to the West of Peterhouse Technology Park, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge PDF 458 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 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 |
||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: This application could not be considered as the meeting was inquorate. Item deferred to the next meeting. |
||||||||||||||||
Meeting Dates 2022/23 PDF 86 KB Minutes: This item could not be considered as the meeting was inquorate. Item deferred to the next meeting. |