Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2 - Guildhall
Contact: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Price and Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Orgee was present as a substitute. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17th September 2014 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the 17th September 2014 were agreed as a correct record. |
||||||||||
14/0028/OUT Land at the Corner of Hatherdene Close and Coldhams Lane PDF 520 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 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 15th 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. |
||||||||||
S/1996/14/FL: Field Station, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge PDF 720 KB Minutes: 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. |
||||||||||
Councillor Blencowe chaired 14/15/JDCC and only City and County Councillors voted on the item. |
||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: 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. |