Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

 

Cambridge City Councillors Carling, Scutt and Flaubert.

Councillors Gawthrope Wood and Levien attended as Alternates.

 

 

South Cambridgeshire District Councillors Cahn and Hawkins.

Councillors J. Williams and Garvie attended as Alternates.

Item	Councillor	Interest
All	R. Williams	Personal: Fellow of Christ’s College.

 

 

The Committee received a report in regard to Planning Committee Protocol for Officer-led Visits (Protocol). Members are being asked to note the Protocol and confirm its implementation.

 

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager presented the report with reference to the Amendment Sheet.  This noted that the Protocol had been discussed at the City and District planning committees earlier in the month. In view of the outcomes of those meetings, an updated officer recommendation is proposed as follows.

 

 

That the Joint Development Control Committee:

 

 (I) Notes this report and the accompanying planning committee protocol for

officer-led site visits.

(II) Confirms implementation of the protocol for officer-led site visits for the Joint

Development Control Committee.

 

Subject to the following amendments to the Protocol:

 

1. Requests for site visits to include ward members.

2. The attendance of site visits to include local ward members.

3. Modest changes to the Protocol, relating to points of clarification and textural

changes to avoid repetition.

 

With officer delegation to carry out the above changes to the Protocol.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Sites Delivery Manager advised the following:

 

      i.         It was the intention to have one document covering all three planning committees that make up the Shared Planning Service serves there will be scope to review how the Protocol operates and update it in due course.

     ii.         Should it be agreed that Ward Members can attend site visit, then they must be briefed in advance of the site visit is the responsibility of the Lead Officer or Delivery Manager.

    iii.         The need for more wider training in the use of the Protocol will be considered as part of the annual planning training for Members.

   iv.         Third parties/objectors cannot attend site visits as they are private Member sessions. There may be circumstances when an applicant needs to attend the visit, for example to allow access to certain areas.

     v.         A question was raised by a Member asking what the legal issues were if it is argued that a Ward Councillor has influenced the decision of the Committee.

   vi.         Legal Officer stated that they would need to note that objection and deal with it at the time. It is important that Ward Members are properly briefed on their role before the visit.

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to:

 

1. Note the report and the accompanying Protocol for officer led site visits.

2. Confirm the implementation of the Protocol for officer-led site visits for the JDCC.

 

Subject to the following amendments to the Protocol:

(i)             Requests for site visits to include local ward members.

(ii)            The attendance of site visits to include ward members, who must abide by the terms of the Protocol, and be briefed on the Protocol procedures and conduct in advance of that visit, by the lead Delivery Manager or planning case officer.

(iii)          Modest changes to the Protocol relating to points of clarification and textural changes to avoid repetition.

 

With officer delegation to carry out these proposed changes to the Protocol and noting that the amendments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/48/JDCC

The Committee received a report by the Strategic Sites Delivery Manager in regard to Joint Development Control Committee Meeting Dates for 2023/2024.

 

      i.         The 20 December date of JDCC date could be moved earlier into December however we cannot guarantee it would be on a Wednesday.

     ii.         In regard to the date 21 February falling on Half-Term, would look into this date to see if it can be moved,

    iii.         Officers will look into these two dates and will come back to Members with a response.

As a result of Members discussion, two dates were not agreed.

 

·       20 December 2023

·       21 February 2024

Officers will investigate possibility of re-scheduling these dates and will report back to Chair and Vice-Chair who will advise at a future meeting.

 

The following dates were agreed:

 

·       21 June 2023

·       19 July 2023

·       16 August 2023

·       20 September 2023

·       18 October 2023

·       15 November 2023

·       24 January 2024

·       20 March 2024

·       17 April 2024

 

 

 

 

The Committee received a Reserved Matters application for the fourth housing phase (known as BDW4) including 342 dwellings, with associated internal roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The Reserved Matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and related partial discharge of conditions 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28, 35, 40, 49, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 69 pursuant to outline approval 07/0003/OUT.

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Officer.

Mr Chris Fry (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer received questions prior to the meeting, those questions and their corresponding answers are below:

 

1. Car Club spaces - are there any of these as part of this application (I seem to remember them being mentioned at one of the previous briefings) and if so, how many and will they have EV charge points. 

 

Car club spaces are controlled by condition 48 on the outline consent which requires 3 spaces within the Local Centre and 2 spaces at the eastern end (BDW5/6).  No spaces proposed within the current parcel, however there are off-street visitor parking bays which could be converted if there is demand. 

 

2. Garden Size - in particular 2,3 and 4 bed houses - what are the minimum (and near to minimum) garden sizes by house type and size and which way do they face.

 

Don’t have information on the minimum garden sizes for each house type, however this has been assessed in the committee report.  The applicant undertook an audit of the scheme to ensure acceptable separation distances which generated acceptable garden sizes.  Shadow studies have been provided and sunlight and daylight studies have been provided for particular gardens which are highly enclosed.  Assessment is provided in paragraph 15.3 onwards.

 

3. Of the flats, how many are single aspect and do all have other measures in place to mitigate this?

 

As per paragraph 19.8, all flats are dual aspect.  The FOGs are dual aspect, many with windows on the side elevation, or others with restricted opening windows on the rear elevation.

 

4. Letter boxes - I note the condition about being a certain height but are these all externally accessible (ie on outside walls with no need to enter flat lobbies as per our current local plan).

 

Applicant confirmed during the course of the application that letter boxes are external, mounted on posts, fully Secure by Design compliant.

 

5. Adoption of streets (para 18.19) - what % of the site is not planned for adoption and why?  If the Mews are being constructed to adoptable standards (para 18.22) why are these not being adopted?

 

Roughly 50-50 based on road length.  The Highways Authority sets out standards for adoptable roads.  Includes design requirements such as the width of the carriageway and footways, and functional requirements, such as it must perform a highways function, not just turning for refuse vehicles for example.  I do not have a detailed audit of the roads not to be adopted, but in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/50/JDCC