Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Sarah Steed Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Election of Chair and Vice Chair. PDF 125 KB Minutes: Councillor Bard opened the meeting. The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager assumed the Chair and invited nominations for the Chair. Councillor Bard was proposed by Councillor Cuffley and seconded by Councillor Kenney. On a show of hands, Councillor Bard was elected unanimously. He assumed the Chair. The Chair invited nominations for the Vice Chair. Councillor Blencowe was proposed by Councillor Price and seconded by Councillor Nightingale. On a show of hands, Councillor Blencowe was elected unanimously. The roles of spokes for the three councils would be agreed outside the meeting. |
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Ashwood (substantive Member)
and Loynes (Alternate). |
|
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: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18th March 2015 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2015 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|
14/1792/FUL Glebe 3 PDF 224 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee noted revised conditions on the amendment
sheet published pre-committee, and the revised amendment sheet tabled 17 June
2015. The Committee received representations in
objection to the application from the following: · Ms Moulding. · Mr Taylor. The representations covered the following
issues:
i.
Specific
concerns regarding: · Loss of view as a result of the development. · Overshadowing. · Overlooking. · Loss of privacy. · Safety concerns over the access road. This is a
private road that would be turned into a public access for pedestrians, bikes and
vehicles. It would be unsuitable for this purpose as it is too narrow and lacks
street lighting. · Took issue with the perceived lack of
consultation by the County Council over the proposal to adopt the access road,
which currently serves one dwelling, and turn it into a more formal link for
pedestrians and cyclists. · Height of the development.
ii.
Suggested the design would be more in-keeping with the character of the
area if it were 2 storey not 3.
iii.
Detached houses that had been bought by existing residents would now
become part of an estate. Originally they had been deliberately bought as
standalone dwellings located away from neighbours. Mr Hunt (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report.
i.
Welcomed the design of the
application, it tried to fit in with neighbours and provided green spaces. ii.
A single track access road was
acceptable in principle. This was in line with other developments. In response to Members’ questions the
Principal Planner and New Neighbourhoods Development Manager said the following: i.
Officers
considered the (current) private access road would be suitable for use as a
public access for pedestrians, bikes and motor vehicles. (Reference paragraph
8.9 on P21 of the Officer’s report). There was enough room for a car and a bike
to pass. ii.
The map of
the application included in the Officer’s report omitted access links that
would be in place. This was an error. iii.
The access
road was not adopted by the Highways Authority at present. The County Council
was the land owner of the main site. Glebe Farm had access rights over this. iv.
The Police
Secured by Design advisor suggested that the access route would provide
unnecessary permeability (ie access), other Officers had supported the access
road (reference paragraph 8.10 on P21 of the Officer’s report), so the
advantages of the road were considered to outweigh the disadvantages. v.
The
purpose of s106 funding was to provide appropriate access for the proposed new
residential units, not to address historic problems. vi.
The
wording in condition 28 (amendment sheet) regarding the need for refuse bins to
be in place before buildings go up appeared to require further refinement. Final
wording would be confirmed in future. vii.
Solar
panels could be fixed to ‘green roofs’ on the proposed units. viii.
Overshadowing
of Glebe Farm House was not significant. It would vary during the year, being
more noticeable March to September; in comparison to January to March then
September to December. The Committee: Resolved (by 13
votes to 0 with 2 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 amended conditions recommended by the officers. |
|
S//0506/15/F Land Adjacent to Greenhouse Park Innovation Centre, Newmarket Road PDF 955 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Professor Harris
(Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application. In response to
Members’ questions the Principal Planner (SCDC) said the following: i.
The
stadium would have a 500 seat capacity, but was not expected to be filled on
each event. ii.
The County
Council recommended including a management plan condition to minimize the
impact of large (ie full capacity) events. iii.
Ice rink
and Park&Ride peak usage times should be different. Therefore there should
be no issue with ice rink users parking in the Park&Ride site during the
evening when the facility was open. Enforcement would be managed through
conditions. Further details would be determined in future. iv.
Undertook
to amend conditions on P62-71 of the Officer’s report to take into
consideration Councillors’ concerns that the rink was not connected to the main
sewer system, so there was no clear information on how flood water would be
dealt with in an emergency, or when the ice rink was deliberately melted then
refrozen to renew it. Members noted the Environment Agency had made no
objections to the design. v.
Disabled
parking would be located on the north of the site, which was the closest part
of the parking area to the rink. 10 spaces were proposed. The Committee: Unanimously resolved 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 amended conditions recommended by the officers: · The
County Council would be informed of large events by the Applicant as part of
parking management procedures. · An event management plan was required to deal with planned/unplanned ice melt events. |
|
Post-Submission Member Briefing - Chesterton Rail Sidings and Cowley Road Re-submission of Chesterton Station Interchange Facility Minutes: Members noted an error on
the agenda front sheet for this item. It would be a post-submission developer
briefing rather than a pre-submission one (as listed on the agenda) which meant
that the site was currently subject to a “live” application. The Committee received a
presentation from: ·
Consultant: Martin Gregson. ·
Bidwells: Kimberly Brown. ·
Carter Jonas: Richard
Seamark. ·
Network Rail: Katherine
Scott In response to Members’ questions the Presenters said the following:
i.
The
presenters were in discussion with officers regarding cycleway and pedestrian
access.
ii.
A design
workshop would occur in future with officers to look at pedestrian, cyclist and
vehicle access. For example, pedestrians could access the station various ways
on-site (eg from the car park) and off-site (eg from the guided busway).
iii.
The car
park was being moved to allow space for decking. Some spaces would be provided
when the station was opened, more could be added in future. 450 car parking
spaces and 1,000 stands for 2,000 bikes were proposed.
iv.
Shorter
canopies would be provided over railway platforms, passengers could wait in
shelters.
v.
Platforms
could accommodate 12 car trains.
vi.
British
Rail had undertaken a survey to assess expected passenger numbers. A transport
assessment was included in the application pack. Further modelling was included
in the environmental impact assessment. vii.
The
ongoing Area Action Plan discussions would confirm (new) building usage. |
|
Pre Application Member Briefing - Parcels S1 and S2, North West Cambridge 144 Market dwellings Minutes: The Committee received a
presentation from Countryside Properties 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. Noted trees were planned to be planted near to houses. Trees block light to nearby houses when they grow above first floor height. Queried how trees and houses would be integrated to avoid this. Trees had initially been welcome near houses in Romsey, but had become a problem when they blocked light. 2. Asked for details on how housing by Hills Residential and Countryside Properties would integrate on the same site as they were provided by two separate companies. 3. Asked whether there were plans to mitigate loss of biodiversity associated with densification of the city? 4. How to prevent further loss of hawthorn hedges in Huntingdon Road? 5. Do houses have individual gardens? 6. Asked how wheelchair users could access houses? 7. Queried car parking facilities. |