Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Flaubert with Councillor Levien attending as alternate.

Councillor Porrer attended online via Teams; it was noted that Councillor Porrer could participate in the debate but would not be able to vote because she was not present in person at the meeting.

The Committee received two discharge of condition applications for the submission of details required by condition 15 (Linear Park details) of planning permission 13/0751/REM and submission of details required by condition 16 (LAPS) of planning permission 13/0751/REM.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident on behalf of a number of residents.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Were largely in favour of the proposals, which were based on a feasibility study the Baker Lane community had produced in 2020. This was based on a Design and Access Statement approved in 2013.

    ii.         Only wanted unnecessary and intrusive elements of the proposals omitted which would save capital and maintenance costs.

   iii.         The proposals may have been policy compliant but they did not have the support of the community.

  iv.         Wanted the Applicant to re-engage with the community and resubmit the application. 

    v.         Referred to the hoggin path at paragraph 10.3 of the Officer’s report: considered this invited travel from both sides of the Linear Park and there was already provision in place for this. This would impact the picnic table and turn this area into a thoroughfare.

  vi.         Noted Officer comments on trees contained in paragraph 17.1 of the Officer’s report. Considered the trees had not been planted in the positions shown on the drawings. There was a gap in tree provision because of a clash with the highway. If the drawings were approved, existing trees would need to be removed and replaced. Residents wanted the existing maturing trees to remain.

Susie Hartas (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

County Councillor Slatter (County Ward Councillor for Trumpington) addressed the Committee about the application.

i.               Houses around Baker Lane park were completed in 2018. She had lived in the area since 2016.

ii.             Some trees had been planted but most of the area was grassed. There had been occasional grass cutting but no further landscaping had been completed.

iii.            Noted that there had been lots of discussions and plans had been drawn up by not only the Applicant but by residents as well.

iv.           Noted Councillors had been involved in discussions with residents.

v.             Noted correspondence from 2019 which detailed the changing views of residents for the area. Their preference was for less hard landscaping, more habitats for wildlife and a substantial area of level grass which could continue to be used for ball games, picnics etc.

vi.           Noted residents had bought a picnic table and wooden seat which was moved around the open space when various activities took place. 

vii.          Residents’ views for the area had changed since the original application was submitted (2013). The way in which outdoor space was used had also changed as a result of the covid pandemic.

viii.        Referred to other open space areas managed by the City Council which included diverse habitats (invertebrates banks).

ix.           Welcomed the proposed seating on hardstanding which could be used all year round and which should be constructed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/30/JDCC

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscape, layout and landscape for 135 residential units and associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

The Committee received a pre-application presentation on Springstead Village, Land North of Cherry Hinton, Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge.

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 are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

1.    Questioned the landscaping proposed and requested that shrubs etc were included as well as trees. 

2.    Asked if the play area proposed to the eastern side of the development would also act as a swale.

3.    Asked for a clear car parking management plan to be in place at the start of the development. Also asked that there was clear designation for residents’ and visitor parking.

4.    Noted the proposed tenure plan and asked if there could be a mix of shared ownership / rented / private accommodation facing the open space.

5.    Asked if the custom build properties would be built in a way to make future loft conversion possible. 

6.    Asked if new forms of construction materials would be used to keep carbon cost down.

7.    Noted that all housing was proposed to be dual aspect and asked whether all windows would be openable.

8.    Asked if there was a plan to manage residents’ water consumption.

9.    Asked if the Design Code helped in designing the development.

10.  Queried if the affordable housing was compliant with the Council’s pepper potting policies.

11.  Queried the use of the name ‘Parkside’ as there was already a location /community within Cambridge called ‘Parkside’ having two might create confusion.

12.  Queried garden sizes.

13.  Queried location of cycle parking and if there would be EV charge points located outside houses.

14.  Queried if there would be any car club spaces.

15.  Queried if there would be a conflict between car parking and ‘play streets’.