Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Price and Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Orgee was present as a substitute.

Councillor	Item	Interest
Smart	14/66/JDCC	Personal interest was declared as she was the Executive Councillor when this scheme was first proposed
de Lacey and Bygott	14/65/JDCC	Personal interests were declared as they were Cambridge University Alumni.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th September 2014 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting of the 17^th September 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission for up to 57 residential dwellings including houses and apartments, open space, landscaping and a new vehicular access from Coldhams Lane to land at the corner of Coldham’s Lane and Hatherdene Close, Cambridge

 

The Committee noted the following oral amendment to the report: at paragraph 8.52, the number of aircraft movements for 2011 should read as 21,768 rather than 51,768.  Secondly, at paragraph 8.92 this should be amended to read that officers at the County Council have reviewed the amended transport assessment and agree that it has addressed previous concerns.  This is confirmed within the comments from the Highways and Transportation team found on page 55 of the agenda in the response dated 15^th July 2014 and at paragraph 8.24.

 

Trevor Dodkins of Phase 2 Planning addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Ward Councillor for Cherry Hinton, Councillor Ashton addressed the Committee and made the following comments:

 

     i.        Six previous applications for this site had been rejected.

    ii.        Local residents have a number of concerns.

   iii.        While not against any development of the site, the scale and density causes concern.

  iv.        Three storey dwellings would dominate the area and impact on neighbours.

   v.        Previous applications were rejected on the grounds of traffic impact and nothing has changed.

  vi.        A previous suggestion of a mini roundabout at the Neath Farm Development on Rosemary Lane  has never been delivered.

 vii.        The area already suffered from congestion which was acknowledged by the report.

viii.        Residents were unhappy with the limited consultation opportunities.

 

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

     i.        Public transport in the area was poor.

    ii.        A travel plan for the development would be essential.

   iii.        Consideration needed to be given to linking both cycle and pedestrian routes for this development to existing communities.

  iv.        The Cambridge East Area Action Plan and the Local Plan both identified this site as viable for development. 

   v.        Acknowledged that this application was an outline proposal which might look very different when it returned to Committee with detailed plans.

  vi.        Requested that future reports in relation to the Reserved Matters  should express building heights as AOD (Above Ordnance Datum – the overall height of a building relative to the average sea level.

 vii.        Concerns were expressed that allowing this development would constrain future development of the airport.

viii.        Several Members felt that there was insufficient information on which to make a decision and suggested deferring a decision.

  ix.        Concerns expressed regarding the impact of additional traffic upon Coldham’s Lane

   x.        Consideration of whether the site adjacent to an operating airport will provide an acceptable environment for the future residents in terms of noise and comprehensive consideration of the types of aircraft and proposals to increase aircraft movements into and out of the airport

  xi.        Flood risks were discussed.

 xii.        Concern that both the market and affordable homes should be achieving more than Code Level 3.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planner Officer and the New Neighbourhoods Development Manager responded as follows:

xiii.        Officers had worked closely with Marshall’s Airport and part of the site was unsuitable for built development due to the Primary Radar systems. The plan takes this into account and it would be covered in the informative.

xiv.        The Ecology Officer was satisfied with the proposed bats protection measures.

xv.        The Code 3 requirement would be a minimum and Officers would be working with the developer to achieve more if possible. In addition, the Housing Standards review was moving away from the code system.

xvi.        Discussions had taken place with the Highway Authority regarding a shared entrance with Hatherdene Close. Increasing traffic through this junction close to a signalized junction was not preferable.  This layout also allows for future development of the Cambridge East site and co-ordinates with the wider masterplan.

xvii.        A noise assessment would be undertaken prior to the submission of a reserved matters application to determine the noise levels and recommendations of suggested mitigation measures.  The current use of the airport is low and the proposal by the airport is to increase.  For this reason, it is more appropriate to undertake the assessment closer to the time of developing the site.  However, there is no principal objection to the proposed development  on the grounds of noise.

xviii.        Previous applications for this site had been rejected as they were ahead of the master plan for the area, and at that point in time, the site had been part of the green belt.

xix.        The application was compliant with the long term coordinated development plan for the area.

xx.        Local consultation had taken place and Officer’s had attended the Cambridge East Community Forum on several occasions to discuss the proposals.

 

The Senior Technical Officer stated that noise mitigation measures could be achieved by acoustic design features of the buildings.

 

The Highway Engineer, stated that whilst the development would have an incremental impact on traffic in the area, this was not regarded as sufficiently significant enough to warrant either refusal of the application or traffic improvement measures and that the Area Corridor Payments, which this development will contribute to are in place to provide improvements from incremental growth in specific areas

 

The Head of Planning noted the concerns of Members and suggested that they test the application against the following criteria: Local Plan compliance, technical consultees lack of objections and that any approval would be subject to detailed approvals at a later date. Officers would be closely scrutinising the detailed applications to follow. 

 

The Committee agreed to make the decision today but wanted their misgivings noted.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 6 with 0 abstentions) to grant the application for outline planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions and completion of a S106 agreement as  recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for Field Station, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge. The Application sought permission for the refurbishment and replacement of redundant buildings for continued Class B1b (Business) use.

 

The Committee noted the following corrections to the report:

 

     i.        The renumber the conditions from condition 8 on so that they become sequentially numbered from then on.

 

    ii.        Condition 2 amended to read as follows (additional word in bold and underlined).

 

Prior to the commencement of development of the buildings approved, except for any underground enabling works, samples of the materials to be used in the construction of external surfaces of the buildings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

   iii.        The brackets around the reason for condition 3 to be removed.

 

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

 

  iv.        Were satisfied that there were no resident concerns.

   v.        Noted that further applications could be received for this building as the rest of the site evolved over time.

 

The Committee:

 

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 and the amendment to condition 2.

The Committee received a reserved matters application for Land between Long Road and Shelford Road (Clay Farm/Showground Site), Cambridge.

 

The Committee noted the following updates:

 

Paragraph 8.1.60 (page 34) of the report, the following text be amended to:

 

The windows to these blocks can be opened but mechanical ventilation to these units has been provided providing residents with the option to use the mechanical ventilation system rather than opening their windows if they are affected by noise from either footfall to the commercial units or servicing of the commercial units.

 

Paragraph 8.1.2 (page 26) of the report text be amended to:  The issue of letterbox provision for all tenures has been well considered to ensure they are conveniently located for all residents and commercial uses and all units will have letterboxes which can be accessed from the street.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Ms Ceri Galloway.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Residents of Foster Road had concerns.

    ii.        Plans had an urban feel and this was an extension to a village.

   iii.        Development was out of keeping with the area.

  iv.        The Foster Road allotment site already had a heavy foot fall.

   v.        Local residents worked hard to keep the area free from litter and dog waste but may not be able to keep the environment pleasant with this number of additional properties.

  vi.        The development would be overbearing.

 vii.        Bio diversity would be damaged.

viii.        The green path would be used for car parking.

  ix.        Conflicts would arise if the right of way was narrowed.

   x.        The fifteen feet of mitigation land along the busway would be built on.

  xi.        The development would have an impact on the ecology of the area particularly the local bat population.

 xii.        Links to the new development would result in increased pedestrian use of the path adjacent to the Foster Road allotments/Chicken Plots.

 

Joanna Thorndyke (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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

 

xiii.        Recognised the concerns of the residents of the Foster Road area.

xiv.        Suggested that this was a very good proposal as it was high quality, tenure blind and included 50% affordable housing.

xv.        Requested that sites in this area be given names that placed them in Trumpington.

xvi.        Expressed concerns about the limited parking provision.

xvii.        Proposed that using the City Deal as a way to improve bus priority on routes into Cambridge could support car free living.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) said the following:

xviii.        The Internal space provision of all the units meets recognised standards and internal storage space has also been well considered. All properties have access to outdoor amenity space in the form of balconies, terraces and a private courtyard area.. The properties also have internal cycle and buggy storage in the entrance halls.

xix.        The majority of dwellings have access to 1 car parking space and there are 8 units, 4 in Royce block and 4 in Searle block which are car free.  The site is located in the central area of Clay Farm, close to public transport links and strategic pedestrian/cycleways and as such parking provision is considered acceptable in this location.  Visitor parking is provided and this is limited through a condition on the outline permission to a maximum number on the Clay Farm site overall.  A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) will ensure parking is managed across the whole of the Clay Farm site and an interim parking management plan will be in place to ensure car parking is managed on site in the short term.

xx.        The outdoor private amenity space of ground floor units in the Minton Court and courtyard amenity space will receive limited amounts of daylight during the winter months of the year.  However, given that this is

xxi.        An issue in the winter months only until March and the availability of additional amenity space (Green Quad, Hobson’s Square, Clay Farm Green Corridor) it is considered acceptable. All units meet the internal daylight and sunlight assessment criteria. 

xxii.        In order to formally reduce the width of the public right of way, the applicant will need to apply for a modification order which would be subject to public consultation. 

xxiii.        The road along the western boundary of the application site is a ‘green lane’.  It is designed to be a shared street with low vehicle speeds to encourage pedestrians to use this as an additional route to the existing Right of Way which will be reduced in width and hard surfaced.  The green land will also include a linear band of allocated car parking for the adjacent residential units and enhanced landscaping along the boundary.

xxiv.        An estate management company will be established and management of car parking on non adoptable roads will form part of its management strategy. An interim traffic management plan and in the longer term Traffic Regulation Order will be in place to ensure inconsiderate parking will not result in obstructions to emergency vehicles and pedestrians.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstentions) 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.