Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th February 2015 as a correct record. 

Minutes to follow

The minutes of the previous meeting would be agreed at the next meeting.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of offices and maintenance accommodation for the Wildlife Trust, together with the provision of allotments, associated landscape planting and ancillary development.

The Committee noted the amendments presented in the amendment sheet and the following change to New Condition 13 (additional wording in italic and bold).

New Condition 13

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the allotment specification agreed under the outline permission 08/0048/OUT contained within  and all the terms and provisions required by Schedule 10, Part E of the associated S106 Agreement dated 9 October 2009.

To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed specification and all the terms of the S106 Agreement, and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4.

Rhian Powell the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

     i.        Expressed satisfaction that this was a good scheme and that initial concerns had been addressed.

    ii.        Expressed disappointment that this building could have been exemplar in terms of its energy use and carbon footprint. An opportunity had been missed.

   iii.        Expressed concerns that this would become a popular cycle route and could be hazardous as it contained pinch points, areas of poor visibility and flowed onto a busy road.

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planner and the Head of Planning said the following:

     i.        Parking options included the Park and Ride site and Byron’s Pool. If on-road parking was later found to be a problem, it could be addressed via a Traffic Regulation Order.

    ii.        In addition, the area could be referred to the Joint Transport Committee if problems arose in the future.

   iii.        The site satisfied the exceptions criteria for building on the green belt as it was needed for outdoor recreation provision. The City Council would manage the allotment site and any allotment outbuildings would be small and low level (small garden sheds).

  iv.        The allotments would have  limited parking provision. However, there would be a drop off point on site.

   v.        Explained that the location of the parking bays for disabled had been dictated by the required turning circle and that the access officer was satisfied with their location.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 14 votes to 1) 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 in accordance with the new and amended conditions set out on the amendment sheet.  The wording of condition 13 was verbally amended at the meeting to read as follows:

New Condition 13

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the allotment specification agreed under the outline permission 08/0048/OUT and all the terms and provisions required under Schedule 10, Part E of the associated S106 Agreement dated 9 October 2009.

Reason:  To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed specification,  all the terms of the S106 Agreement, and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the continued use of land for parking for cars, lorry chassis and goods vehicles for a period until 31 December 2022 (previous permission ref: S/1112/08/F.).

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.

The Committee received a briefing from the Housing Development Officer, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

The briefing explained why it was agreed in 2011 that the Affordable Housing tenure split at Clay Farm is 60% Affordable Rent and 40% Shared Ownership as opposed to the S106 agreement preferred split of 75% Affordable Rent and 25% Intermediate

In response to the briefing, Members’ made the following comments:

     i.        Expressed disappointment that the aspiration of delivering a higher proportion of Affordable Rented units, in accordance with the top of the approved S106 cascade could not be achieved  during this time period  .

    ii.        Suggested that the table demonstrating the tenure splits across the site lacked clarity in terms of the difference between numbers of units and percentages.

In response to Members’ questions about Right to Buy ,the  Housing Development Officer confirmed that there were no restrictions in place regarding stair-casing. With the exception of some rural exception sites, stair-casing up to purchasing 100% of the property was possible.

Proposed 244 market units forming part of the North West Cambridge site

The Committee received a presentation from Hill Residential on M1/M2, North West Cambridge.

The presentation covered:

     i.        The tenure split of the site.

    ii.        Overview of the site plan highlighting significant features.

   iii.        The high build standards (BREAM excellent and sustainability Code 5)

  iv.        The connectivity of the site and it relationship with existing communities.

   v.        Basement or on-plot parking as standard to keep cars out of sight whenever possible.

  vi.        Aspirations of the site to create an environment that meets the needs of future resident and the way they want to live. For example, properties designed to accommodate home working.

Members raised comments/questions as summarised 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.   Had the fact that the local authorities administrative boundary runs through the site been taken into account?

2.   What steps would be taken to avoid the site becoming a short cut to other areas?

3.   Would the high level of insulation make the properties susceptible to overheating?

4.   How much additional cost had been necessary to facilitate the basement parking?

5.   How does the building on the corner of Villa Street respond to the external boundary?

6.   Will this be an open community (no gates)?

7.   Who would be able to purchase the open market properties?