Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor KennEy, Robertson and Shelton.

Councillor Gawthrope and Orgee were present as alternates.

No interests were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th August 2014 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting of the 20^th August 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

The Committee received a reserved matters application.

The Reserved Matters Application related to (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to S/2036/13/VC for  70 residential units, including 49 market units and 21 key worker units, access roads (including cycle and pedestrian routes), cycle parking, car parking, landscaping, utilities and associated ancillary structures

The Committee noted the amendments and amended /combined conditions as detailed in the amendment sheet. Members requested that future reports it needs to be clearer in highlighting what is amended and which conditions are additions. In addition, affordable housing distribution plans should always be included within the agenda papers where relevant, as well as in officer presentations.

Roger Taylor addressed the Committee on behalf of Cambridge University in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

     i.        Expressed concerns that the number of parking spaces provided in the application appeared inadequate for the number of units.

    ii.        Expressed concerns that much of the parking provision was on street.

   iii.        The Committee accepted that the parking provision met the required numbers, but some members suggested that less than one space per unit, and very limited visitor parking, would be problematic in the future. 

  iv.        The clustering of key worker homes was queried and some members felt that the units could have been better distributed across the site.

   v.        Members considered the Car Club to be important for the development.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed the following:

  vi.        The courtyard areas would be managed spaces with the hope that they would be adopted and cared for by residents over time.

 vii.        The planters would be maintained by the University in shared areas but will belong to owners/occupiers in the individual courtyards.

viii.        The design was aspirational with the aim of encouraging non-car lifestyles.

  ix.        The larger site would be broken down into individual areas with their own character.

The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager confirmed that  market housing Lots would be coming forward in the near future  and would shortly be subject to pre-application discussions with  developers. Car parking provision would be raised with those developers.

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

Parcels 6 & 7 Clay Farm regarding 167 dwellings and proposed supporting infrastructure.

The Committee received a presentation from Countryside Properties, Tate Hindle Architects and Townsend Landscape Architects regarding Parcels 6 and 7 of Clay Farm.

The presentation covered the following:

     i.        The quality of the design.

    ii.        Linkages to other parcels on the site (2 and 5) and existing communities.

   iii.        Green links and the protection of mature planting.

  iv.        Density (45 to 65 per hectare).

   v.        Traffic calming measures.

  vi.        Sustainable drainage solutions.

 vii.        Building to Code level 4.

viii.        Orientating properties to make the best use of sunlight.

  ix.        Affordable housing distribution

Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers were to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes.

1.   Traffic calming is not always pedestrian friendly.

2.   Queried why a shared cycle and pedestrian path was proposed.

3.   Queried why grey water harvesting solutions were not included.

4.   Requested more details on the number of lifetime homes.

Queried access routes and linkages to Fawcett School.