Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application No: 19/1056/REM
Site Address: Land Between Huntingdon Road And Histon Road, Cambridge Known As "Darwin Green
One"
Description: Reserved
Matters application for second housing phase (known as BDW2) including 330
dwellings with associated internal roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and
public open space. The Reserved Matters include access, appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale and related partial discharge of conditions 8,
10, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, 35, 40, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, and 66 pursuant to outline
approval 07/0003/OUT and use of the Pavilion building for Use Classes A1
(shops), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), A5 (hot food
takeaways).
Applicant:
Agent: Harriet Wooler
Address: Bidwells House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD
Lead
Petitioner: Residents of Woodlark Road
Case
Officer: Charlotte Burton
Text of Petition:
The grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
Objections
1. Accuracy – the plans submitted
illustrate a historic view of the houses and flats on Woodlark Road and do not
reflect the recent planning permission for the rear extensions at Grosvenor
Court, or alterations and extensions to the houses in Woodlark Road over the
last 10 years. The plans are therefore inaccurate. Consequently, it is not
possible to ascertain accurately the impact of the new development,
particularly on overlooking and daylight / sun light issues on the existing
community.
2. Proximity – the proximity of the new
development to existing perimeter buildings on Woodlark Road is too close. This
is particularly relevant for 131 – 136 in the BDW2 plans.
3. Density – the density of houses in the
BDW2 development is far greater than the surrounding areas.
4. The Pavilion. This is situated in a
quiet residential area, the use of this building is best served in a
residential capacity. Alteration for use as retail, food and licensed premises
is not appropriate. Proximity would expose nearby properties to a security
risk, noise, cooking odours and pollution from external lighting. Of note, there are also no plans of how the
Pavilion would be adapted for retail use or whether the plan is to demolish the
building which has historical and architectural importance. The building has
already been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair.
5. Drainage – there is a real risk of
flooding in the ditch which runs parallel between Darwin Green and Woodlark
Road:
a) More information needs to be provided about how the long term maintenance of the ditch will be funded. The information provided does not meet the requirements of condition 35 of the outline conditions.
b) The security implications of the maintenance path, which runs parallel and behind the Woodlark Road, needs more consideration in its design.
c) There is also concern that the drainage on the Darwin Green site does not have adequate capacity to allow for climate change. The proposed drainage system could be overwhelmed by heavy sustained rainfall and subsequently the overflow could cause flooding to the surrounding areas.
6. Light pollution – given the proximity of the houses and gardens in the BDW2 development to the houses in Woodlark Road there should be restrictions to the position of lighting in these gardens, to include security lighting in the proposed development. The use of low level and low wattage lighting should be mandatory.
Recommendations
1. The plans for the BDW2 development should be updated with the correct drawings for the houses along Woodlark Road and the planning application resubmitted. The current drawings are misleading and incorrect.
2. The gardens behind the BDW2 houses that run parallel to Woodlark Road should be 20 metres in depth as indicated on the original pre planning drawings shown at Public meetings, with an orientation that inhibits any overlooking, and a size that does not impact daylight / sunlight issues.
3. The density of the buildings should be checked against current best practice for residential developments of this nature.
4. The Pavilion should not be given change of use and should be used for residential use with a community meeting room – in keeping with a Pavilion.
5. The drainage scheme should be reviewed to ensure it meets the required 100 year flood risks taking into account the impact of Climate change. This should be carried out by an independent body. Information should also be provided on the company who will be responsible for the maintenance of the ditch along the Woodlark Road gardens.
6. There should be mandatory restriction on the lighting used in the gardens and on the security lights on the rear walls of the houses running parallel to Woodlark Road – they should be low level and low wattage.
Minutes:
Application
No: 19/1056/REM
Site
Address: Land Between Huntingdon Road and Histon
Road, Cambridge Known As "Darwin Green One"
Description: Reserved Matters application for second
housing phase (known as BDW2) including 330 dwellings with associated internal
roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The Reserved
Matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and related
partial discharge of conditions 8, 10, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, 35, 40, 49, 52, 58,
62, 63, and 66 pursuant to outline approval 07/0003/OUT and use of the Pavilion
building for Use Classes A1 (shops), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking
establishments), A5 (hot food takeaways).
Applicant: BDW Cambridgeshire and The North West
Cambridge Consortium of Landowners
Agent: Harriet Wooler
Address: Bidwells House
Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD
Lead
Petitioner: Residents of Woodlark Road
Case Officer: Charlotte
Burton
Text of Petition:
The grounds
for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
Objections
1. Accuracy
The plans
submitted illustrate a historic view of the houses and flats on Woodlark Road
and did not reflect the recent planning permission for the rear extensions at
Grosvenor Court, or alterations and extensions to the houses in Woodlark Road
over the last 10 years. The plans were therefore inaccurate. Consequently, it
was not possible to ascertain accurately the impact of the new development,
particularly on overlooking and daylight / sun light issues on the existing
community.
2. Proximity
The proximity
of the new development to existing perimeter buildings on Woodlark Road was too
close. This was particularly relevant for 131 – 136 in the BDW2 plans.
3. Density
The density of
houses in the BDW2 development was far greater than the surrounding areas.
4. The
Pavilion.
This was situated
in a quiet residential area, the use of this building was best served in a
residential capacity. Alteration for use as retail, food and licensed premises
was not appropriate. Proximity would expose nearby properties to a security
risk, noise, cooking odours and pollution from external lighting. Of note, there were also no plans of how the
Pavilion would be adapted for retail use or whether the plan was to demolish
the building which had historical and architectural importance. The building
had already been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair.
5. Drainage
There was a
real risk of flooding in the ditch which runs parallel between Darwin Green and
Woodlark Road:
a)
More
information needs to be provided about how the long term maintenance of the
ditch will be funded. The information provided does not meet the requirements
of condition 35 of the outline conditions.
b)
The
security implications of the maintenance path, which runs parallel and behind
the Woodlark Road, needs more consideration in its design.
c)
There
is also concern that the drainage on the Darwin Green site does not have
adequate capacity to allow for climate change. The proposed drainage system
could be overwhelmed by heavy sustained rainfall and subsequently the overflow
could cause flooding to the surrounding areas.
6. Light
pollution
Given the
proximity of the houses and gardens in the BDW2 development to the houses in
Woodlark Road there should be restrictions to the position of lighting in these
gardens, to include security lighting in the proposed development. The use of
low level and low wattage lighting should be mandatory.
Recommendations
1.
The
plans for the BDW2 development should be updated with the correct drawings for
the houses along Woodlark Road and the planning application resubmitted. The
current drawings were misleading and incorrect.
2.
The
gardens behind the BDW2 houses that run parallel to Woodlark Road should be 20
metres in depth as indicated on the original pre planning drawings shown at
Public meetings, with an orientation that inhibits any overlooking, and a size
that does not impact daylight / sunlight issues.
3.
The
density of the buildings should be checked against current best practice for
residential developments of this nature.
4.
The
Pavilion should not be given change of use and should be used for residential
use with a community meeting room – in keeping with a Pavilion.
5.
The
drainage scheme should be reviewed to ensure it meets the required 100year
flood risks considering the impact of Climate change. This should be carried
out by an independent body. Information should also be provided on the company
who will be responsible for the maintenance of the ditch along the Woodlark
Road gardens.
6.
There
should be mandatory restriction on the lighting used in the gardens and on the
security lights on the rear walls of the houses running parallel to Woodlark
Road – they should be low level and low wattage.
Case by applicant
Asa Chittock,
Director (Barratts David Wilson Homes), Tristan Rogers, Architect (Allies and Morrison) and Robert
Masson, Drainage Consultant (Patrick Parsons) made the following points:
1)
Introduced
the application; phase 2 of the development known as BDW2, 330 homes comprising
of 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom detached and semi-detached houses and apartments
with 40% of social houses on site.
2)
Work
began approximately 18 months ago on phase 1 with 50 occupants living on site
(half were social housing). The central courtyard was being developed to
provide local facilities, the health centre was currently being built and work
would begin on the library facilities.
3)
Phase
2 of the development was characterised by the pavilion quarter as outlined in
the design code approved in 2014; the pavilion building was a key feature with architectural merit and could be used as
community facility not only for residents of Darwin Green but the surrounding
area.
4)
Proposed
to prioritise cycle and pedestrian movements through the site.
5)
Ordnance
survey data (August 2019) had been used which was available at the time for the
drawings submitted; acknowledged there would be some development on this data
that had not been captured in the surrounding areas.
6)
Very
familiar with the site, walked the boundaries and was aware of the existing
building line on Woodlark Road, (especially No’s 131-136) with Grosvenor Court
a noticeable exception.
7)
Had
started to look at solar study taking the existing proposal as submitted and
s73 application for Grosvenor Court in terms of massing and setting with
studies taken on 21 March, 21 June and 21 December. These had demonstrated that
the orientation of the proposal relative to Grosvenor Court showed minor or no
implications for overshadowing.
8)
Would
propose to the reduce the depth of those properties on the plots immediately
behind Grosvenor Court (plots 133 & 134) and introduce shallower homes. The
distance from the home to boundary would increase from 9.88m to 13m, with 4m
from the back of Grosvenor Court to the boundary.
9)
BDW2
had 31 dwellings per hectare on the lower density compared to 40 dwellings per
hectare in the Design Code, 49 Dwellings per hectare in the medium density
compared to 45 in the Code.
10)
The
development edges were considered key to the proposal and had responded to the
larger more spacious homes that were already in existence to the perimeter.
11)
Not
feasible to convert the pavilion to residential use. Believed that a café /
restaurant in the pavilion would be beneficial to the community. Would narrow
the use classes (removing A5, hot fast food takeaway) and add additional
conditions to alleviate the concerns raised.
Noted the conditions recommended by the Environmental Health team to
control the impact on neighbours.
12)
Described
the existing condition of the ditch running adjacent to Woodlark Road as in a
poor condition with parts of the banks collapsing. The bank slopes would be improved at
various points and the hydraulic speed of the flow the water would increase.
13)
Following development there would be a completely
new drainage system covering the entire site; all part of a major
infrastructure change, suited in size with flow control, discharge restrictions
all in line with local authority guidelines. Therefore, the ditch would not be
required as part of the approved strategic drainage strategy.
14)
The ditch would be retained in the current route and
had allowed for a 1.2m maintenance corridor adjacent to the ditch. Would
discuss with the Council to take on the long-term maintenance or a management
company would be set up funded by the residents of the development. Lower fencing would be installed in the back
gardens of those properties on the development site facing the ditch for
natural surveillance. A locked gate at
each end of the maintenance corridor would help deter anti-social behaviour.
16)
Would look at suitable conditions for lighting and
the use of low wattage lighting for the central lighting; proposed to have
lighting on the maintenance corridor along the ditch.
The question was asked if the solar study was done on the submitted plans
or the proposed amended plans shown in the presentation (the amended plans
showed the proposal of reducing the depth of some properties behind Grosvenor
Court).
Tristan Rogers responded that it was done on the submitted plans (current
plans as submitted) but incorporated the massing of Grosvenor Court as proposed
under the Section 73 application.
Case by Petitioners against
Petitioners
Representative presented the following presentation circulated a handout to
Members present:
1)
Advised
that approximately 98% of the street had signed the petition and all agreed the
issues raised were substantive. Surrounding streets were also impacted by the
development.
2)
Acknowledged
there was a need for additional housing. But modifications were required to the
proposed development which would be a benefit to the community.
3)
Detailed
a brief history of the use of the site which had been used for playing fields
and farmland.
4)
Many
residents had attended the open days concerning the development and while
supporting the need for additional housing they felt their feedback had not
been understood or concerns considered.
5)
Pleased
to see the developers have made some acknowledgement to their concerns.
However, concerned that the suggestions put forward do not go far enough.
6)
The
Pavilion was of historical and architectural importance which could act as a
bridge between the new and the old development bringing communities together.
7)
Believed
the boundary with adjacent properties was not accurately reflected in the
planning application; questioned how close the buildings in proximity were,
were the trees real or an artist impression. It was difficult to get a true
feeling of the development and better drawings were required to realistically
represent the boundary and relationships.
8)
Presented
images from google maps showing recent extensions and studios not shown on the
drawings which highlighted how close the boundary of the development was to
neighbouring houses.
9)
The
new development to the existing houses in Woodlark Road had changed, initially
advised the houses would be 20m to the boundary but now down to 10m; Grosvenor
Court considerably closer.
10)
Proximity
to the existing perimeter buildings was too close, the distance between the
back elevation of the BDW2 houses 131-136 was less than 14m including the ditch
and service road, other similar BDW2 houses had over 20m.
11)
The
proposed car park for the pavilion would be used for delivery vehicles for the
restaurant, this was too close to the residential area. The building had stood
for 90 years and should be respected, and further thought on correct use was
required.
In response to
a question from Members it was confirmed that building work (planning
permission approved) was currently being carried out on Grovesnor
Court.
12)
Questioned
at what height the solar studies had been undertaken; the Darwin Green site
ground level was much higher than Woodlark Road, therefore the houses would be
sitting higher than those on Woodlark Road.
13)
The
density should be reduced, the gardens in Woodlark Road needed to be longer
towards the development. More planting and trees were required for screening
purposes which would also help local wildlife; but where would substantial
screening be placed?
14)
The
use of the pavilion should be kept to residential and community use not
A1 (shops), A3 (restaurant & café), A4 (licensed drinking) and A5 (hot take
away use) which was totally unsuited to the area due to noise, cooking, waste
smells, traffic noise (especially Deliveroo scooters which would use the
service footpath cycle way from Huntingdon Road to the Pavilion), delivery and
waste collection lorries.
15)
Disappointed to note no conditions concerning
noise pollution had been included in the application. Conditions recommended by
Environmental Health are insufficient and would want firmer controls. Deliveries were proposed from 7am to 11pm,
extraction and filtration units on site would also add to the noise. Odour would also be an issue for residents on both the new
development and surrounding areas.
16)
Questioned why the developer’s viability study
suggested the pavilion was not suited for residential & community use, as
stated due to the extensive reconfiguration and retrofitting of the building
required to change into residential units, which would risk the loss of its
architectural character. However, the proposed change of use would require
considerable reconfiguration and retrofitting of the building to meet the
Environmental Health, fire and Health & Safety conditions.
17)
Proposed
retail units should be situated at the main commercial centre of the
development.
18)
Expressed
frustration at how the developers kept changing their plans; they were
originally told that the Pavilion was going to be for residential use and the
gardens on the perimeter longer than 10m with substantial hedging along the
boundary.
19)
Concerned
at the risk of flooding from the ditch adjacent to Woodlark Road. Further analysis
of the surface water drainage from Huntingdon Road was required; the playing
fields had acted as a soak away before the water arrived at the ditch, but
where would it flow to and who
would be responsible for the maintenance of the ditch? The ditch had flooded on
previous occasions so needed to be addressed.
20)
Don’t
have enough information particularly on maintenance. Need a maintenance plan for the ditch
adjacent to Woodlark Road to be secured through a condition.
21)
Can
move on from concerns about light pollution subject to conditions to be
proposed by the applicant.
22)
Ended
with the following summary:
·
The
properties 131 – 136 on the BDW2 development need their location reviewing as
they are too close to Grosvenor Court.
The amendment proposed to move only three houses was insufficient and
did not address the concerns from other residents on Woodlark Road.
·
The
proposed use of the pavilion for retail, restaurant, bar and take away use and
the opening hours were unsuited to this area and would be strongly opposed at
the premises license application stage, if change of use were given.
·
Questioned
why the Pavilion could not be used for residential and community use, with the
retail units placed in the central commercial area, which was the original
plan.
·
The
developer should have a more balanced view between maximizing “shareholder
value” and the needs of their customers who will be buying these houses
(particularly houses 131 – 136). What type of neighbourhood were
they trying to create, one that complements the surrounding area or one that
was at odds with it?
Case Officers’ comments:
Charlotte
Burton outlined the following:
1)
Application
was received in August 2019 and validated in November 2019. The target date for
the application had been exceeded, a revised date for determination had yet to
be agreed with the applicant.
2)
Reiterated
this was a reserved matters application pursuant to the outline consent for
Darwin Green 1 for up to 1593 homes; the outline consent included the approved
parameter plans, planning conditions and the approved design code which formed
the planning context in which the application would be assessed.
3)
To
date 15 objections had been received from residents from Huntingdon Road and
Woodlark Road. The Committee of the Windsor Road Residents Association had also
objected to the proposal and supported the petitioners today.
4)
No
representations had been received in support of the application to date.
5)
Objections
received related to those raised by the petitioners, use of the pavilion,
impact on the neighbouring properties, concern about flooding and drainage, as
well as the impact on ecology.
6)
The
Environmental Health Team had supported the application subject to recommended
conditions.
7)
The
City Council’s drainage engineer and the Lead Local Flood Authority had
requested additional information regarding drainage calculations which will
then be reviewed.
8)
Concerns
had been expressed by the Highways Authority on the road layout, vehicle
traffic and highway safety. This was currently being discussed with the
applicant.
9)
Urban
Design had made comments on minor issues such as cycle storage and landscaping
issues which were being discussed.
10)
There
were some outstanding comments from consultees on the affordable housing mix
which was being followed up by the applicant.
11)
Officers
had not yet reached a decision on the application; the timescale for
determination was under review which would depend on the applicant’s response
to the consultees, third parties and the outcome of the Development Control
Forum.
Ward
Councillor remarks
Councillor
Chadwick made the following points:
1)
Thanked
the petitioners for such a detailed presentation, also been supported by
Councillor Payne (Castle Ward Councillor).
2)
The
petition was also endorsed by several residents from the surrounding areas.
3)
Reiterated
the applicant’s original intention was to keep the pavilion for residential use
which had been changed to commercial use. Understood residents’ frustration at
the changes.
4)
There
was no guarantee what or who would fill the space in the pavilion and how long
they would be able to stay for or how they would evolve their business.
5)
Questioned
if the surface water drainage coming off the existing Huntingdon Road
properties had been taken into the account when the modelling had been carried
out?
6)
Sought
clarification if all the plots on Grosvenor Court identified by the petitioners
were being moved back?
Members’ Questions and Comments:
The following
responses were made to Members’ questions:
Accuracy
1)
The
Chair: Confirmed that the drawings / maps in the petitioners’ presentation had
not be verified.
2)
Tristan
Rogers: In terms of actual heights of the building shown on the presentation
the figures had been taken from the topography survey, there was a fall across
the site of 2.5m to 3m towards to the ditch. The proposed buildings closest to
the perimeter of the site were two storey houses. Would supply the exact information on datum
used.
Proximity
1)
Asa
Chittock: Not intending to remove any existing
hedgerow along the ditch adjacent to Woodlark Road. There were no hedgerows on the BDW side of
the ditch and would be difficult to plant hedges on this side as an area was
required for the maintenance corridor mentioned.
2)
Asa
Chittock: The distance of 1.2m of the ditch
maintenance path had been agreed with the City Council’s Drainage Officer. To
reduce the width could hinder future maintenance.
3)
Robert
Masson: Could be possible to reduce the
width of the ditch though had not been instructed to do so. When looking at the
flow of the ditch it was the base of the ditch that is taken into consideration
as the ditch would need a constant gradient. The ground did not fall at the
same gradient as the ditch so the width of the ditch would decrease or
increase.
4)
Robert
Masson: The slope of the ditch differed along its length as the topography
varied. A one in three slope had been proposed.
5)
Robert
Masson: The ditch was a landscaping feature maintained with landscaping tools
or a mini/micro digger. Believed that 1.2m width of the maintenance corridor
would be the minimum required for access.
6)
Asa
Chittock:
There was various
garden sizes throughout the development; not a standard 10m size these ranged
from 10m to 4m. Therefore, there was no standard back to back distance of 20m.
With regards to the proposed homes backing onto Woodlark Road there was a 7m to
10m distance to the boundary. Many gardens dependent on extensions
(acknowledged that some extensions had not been picked up on the data) were
between 25m to 35m, providing a back to back distance of 30m to 40m.
7)
Tristan
Rogers: The solar studies were based on levels taken from the topography data.
There was a noticeable fall on the site, however, where the studies were taken
there was not a significant difference between the proposed properties backing
onto Woodlark Road and the neighbouring properties. The application site on the
northern edge showed that any solar over shading was limited. The level
differences had been picked up in the section of the study and showed no
significant impact.
The Chair
recommended the Case Officer should work with the applicant as detailed
information was required on sunlight and daylight, the implications and the
distances needed to be verified. Current information supplied was not clear to
Councillors and Petitioners. Clear diagrammatical information was necessary to
illustrate those relationships and impacts.
Noted the
request for generic information on the distances between windows of houses to
avoid overlooking to understand how close the houses were and if there was a
matter of overlooking.
Density
1)
Dwellings
adjacent to Woodlark Road would be 31 dwellings per hectare and lower than the
40 dwellings per hectare in the Design Code.
Pavilion
1)
The
Chair: The Children’s Centre was originally intended to be part of the primary
school in Darwin Green 1, however, national level funding had changed. The
County Council Education Team were reviewing the primary school and the timing
of completion. The matter of the Children’s Centre provision had been raised
with the County, and the response would
be shared when received from the County officers.
2)
The
Chair: If the pavilion became available for community use this would be in
addition to what was secured and paid for in the s106 agreement by the
developer under the Darwin Green 1 outline consent.
3)
Asa
Chittock:
Want to create a
space that was positive for new and existing residents meeting the needs of the
community. Agreed the temporary community facility within Darwin Green 1 was
not large but served a purpose until a larger community facility was developed
in the central area of the site.
4)
Asa
Chittock: The pavilion could be a beneficial link
between the sites. Under the original planning permission there was no
requirement for the building to be used as a community building. Believed the
residents would benefit from a small café / restaurant, could be a secondary
use for community meetings.
Drainage
1)
Robert
Masson: The ditch adjacent to Woodlark Road was a surface water drain
discharging into an Anglian Water surface water sewer between Woodlark Road
properties. This was then taken to an Anglian Water treatment centre; Believed
the sewer ran to the south west to Huntingdon Road but would have to check
records to confirm.
2)
Robert
Masson: Maintenance issues regarding a
375mm sewer would be under the control of Anglian Water. The headwall inlet
would be under the control of the developer.
3)
Robert
Masson: The proposal would remove the entire BDW2 site from the surface water
catchment area for the ditch. There
would only be surface water from the gardens of Woodlark Road in the ditch.
This would reduce the rainwater drainage into the ditch by four fifths.
4)
Robert
Masson: The ditch was currently in a poor condition and it proposed to
undertake a robust clean up. If repairs were to be undertaken the ditch could
also take the surface water from BDW2 site. Do not think that the ditch would
flood in future
The
Petitioners Representative expressed concern at changing the flow of water from
across the site to along the site due the continued ground movement which had
occurred behind Woodlark Road. Would like to have specific figures at what
level the houses would be built. It would be diligent to ask where the water
that would have gone to the playing fields as a soak away for Huntingdon Road
where is it going to go as it had to go somewhere. When the ditch was full water would pass
through the outflow (Anglian Water drainage) and run up the ditch until it had
backed up to a sufficient height and then flowed back.
Robert Masson:
The existing condition of the ditch was inadequate; flooding that had been
experienced was irrelevant as post development this would not occur. The
infrastructure was in place to serve the entire Darwin Green 1 development so
at present was over designed and over engineered as it was not taking the full
catchment.
Robert Masson:
Although the topography of the site showed that the water flowed towards the
ditch, the gradient was flat and the site flat, there was no massive velocity
of water that moved across the site.
Robert Masson:
Any water on the playing fields from Huntingdon Road was overland flow; don’t
believe there was any additional water from Huntingdon Road as the topography
did not support this. Huntingdon Road was not at the highest elevation of the
site.
5)
Robert
Masson: The four fifths referenced in the report refers to the total catchment
discharging into the ditch; when the BDW2 site is removed from the catchment as
a result of the proposed development there will be a four fifths reduction,
with the remainder would be from Woodlark Road properties.
6)
Robert
Masson: Gravel would fill up the ditch, but maintenance would clean this. Was
instructed that the ditch was to remain and not to be replaced by a pipe and
recommended remediation of the ditch such as removal of rubble, relining of
banks. Questioned if a pipe would be
able to take discharge from a third party and where the pipe should be located,
ideally should be placed in the gardens of Woodlark Road.
7)
Robert
Masson: Confirmed climate change had been taken into consideration, each individual plot would hold storage of
surface water within the plot boundary, meeting the 100-year storm event, plus
the climate change allowance. Each plot would have a 40% allowance for future
climate change, 2.5 cubic metres per plot.
Summing up by the Applicants
1)
The
drawings had been completed using the latest 2019 OS data but did understand
there had been extensions to properties after this which were not shown on the
plans. The site had been studied in detail and the proximity to existing
dwellings. Did not feel there was any specific areas to note that required
further consideration.
2)
Would
look at any issues raised through the Council on individual plots with the
petitioners and try to add them to the drawings.
3)
The
garden length on the plots facing Woodlark Road was sufficient. No issues had
been raised by the Council’s Urban Design Team or the Case Officer. Their
concerns raised regarding Grosvenor Court had been addressed.
4)
The
general back to back distance of the proposed properties to Woodlark Road were
30-40m approximately. Increasing the size of the gardens would reduce the
provision of much needed housing.
5)
Agreed
to look at the provision to increase potential planting along the ditch without
interfering with the width of the maintenance corridor.
6)
With
regards to density was in line with the guidelines of the outline planning
permission and had addressed the relationship of the boundaries of the site;
all the properties were two storey and the majority detached houses reflected
the character of the houses they were facing.
7)
The
pavilion needed to be retained and would become a community asset. A restaurant
/ café would allow residents to meet there. Would restrict the class use.
8)
The
site wide drainage strategy was approved as part of the outline planning
permission. Residents had requested that the ditched remained and there would
be a maintenance plan in place to ensure that the ditch stayed.
9)
Would
look at suitable conditions concerning lighting to ensure that there was no
impact for existing residents.
Summing up by the petitioners against
1)
Still
had the same concerns.
2)
Concerned
about the accuracy of the data; good decisions could not be made.
3)
Not
received a proper answer to the solar studies; was the land flat or did it
include the change in levels? Would like the actual data to be shared on these
studies.
4)
Queried
the priorities of the developers which seemed largely commercial. Should
understand the impact on the existing residents therefore what could be done to
improve the wellbeing; installation of additional hedges, shrubs were promised
at the start of the development and now being told it was impossible. A
solution should be found.
5)
The
pavilion would be perfect for residential use with commercial use for a creche
and Children’s Centre, why would this not be possible, no reasons had been
given? Had asked for a copy of the viability report before the meeting but this
had not been forthcoming.
6)
Needed
to be sure that the footpaths and cycle paths to the pavilion would not be used
by delivery drivers when picking up food orders.
7)
Required
the exact height of buildings when completed to get the correct flows across
the site. Despite repeated requests the answers had not been given, would the
levels change, or would they be higher?
8)
Hedging
had been promised along the boundary.
9)
A
balance was needed between the developer making a commercial return but not at
the expense of residents’ satisfaction and enjoyment of the site.
Final Comments of the Chair
The Chair
observed the following:
1)
Thanked
both parties for their presentations.
2)
There
was no target committee date for the application. The Case Officer and
Applicant must work together to ensure that the final submission of drawings
was accurate in relation to the matters raised at such as the solar studies,
the levels and drainage matter.
3)
The
application was complex and advised the presentation material when presented to
the Planning Committee should be simple and easy to understand.
4)
Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties.
5)
Petitioners
would be advised of the committee date.
Supporting documents: