Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The application sought approval for reserved matters application
detailing, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of
421 new homes with associated infrastructure, internal roads, open space as
part of Phase 2 pursuant to condition 5 (reserved matter) of outline planning
permission S/2681/13/OL dated 30 November 2016.
Mr Cobley (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.
The Committee raised the following concerns in response to
the report:
i.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) took over some
green space area, if the SuDS did not drain, some of this would be lost as
amenity space.
ii.
Gradients in SuDS may cause a safety hazard for
wheelchair users on access paths, and if people/children got into the SuDS they
might not get out.
iii.
There were a series of alleyways through the site
to gardens that may be a focus for criminal activity.
The Senior Planning Officer said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Titch area was to be built to ‘normal’ levels,
the SuDS basin had a 1 in 3 gradient.
ii.
SuDS were originally located in The Titch as this
was the only available open space. They were now located as per the submitted
design as there was nowhere else to put them as part of Phase 2. Losing 1/3 of
open space due to flooding was a worst-case scenario, but there was more than
one area of open space.
iii.
1 in 100 year flooding events were occurring more
frequently so Officers asked the Applicant to model climate change impact on
flooding in the area. Drainage Officers at both the County Council and City
Council reviewed the results and had no objections to the SuDS scheme.
iv.
SuDS were controlled through a hydro brake system
to gradually leak water stopping ponds forming. The Lead Local Flood Authority
had no objections to this.
v.
Aquatic planting was controlled through the
planting condition. The Applicant would undertake a health and safety
audit to ensure plants were safe if
anyone went into the SuDS.
vi.
Landscape planting and screening details for open
spaces would be sought in future.
vii.
Bike parking provision met minimum standards,
anymore would require a change in policy.
viii.
M4(2) accommodation standards were met. The City
Council wanted M4(3) standard whereas South Cambs wanted M4(2). The application
site was within South Cambs administrative area and thereby fell under its
local plan requirements.
ix.
Alleys gave access to rear gardens. Would check if
these could be made more secure in future eg gated access.
x.
There were secure gardens on top of garages as
amenity space for apartment occupants.
xi.
There were no specific timelines on when grid
capacity would be available for electric vehicle charging points. It was
assumed this would be possible in a couple of years.
xii.
The Design Code required apartments in the
locations stated to a set density that created a mix of affordable rent and
shared ownership around the buildings. This was tenure blind and so the best
fit to policy under the circumstances.
xiii.
Officers had expressed concern about the number of
single aspect apartments so they asked for modelling to quantify the risk of
overheating/cooling. Apartments that had been retained in the design had been
shown to provide acceptable amenity space. The window type mitigated heat
intake into buildings, so the issues had been addressed.
xiv.
Individual car parking spaces could not be
allocated to apartments to control uses without changes to conditions in the
Car Parking Management Plan.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation to include:
i.
an informative encouraging the Applicant to
consider M4(3) standard accommodation where possible;
ii.
include an informative about south facing single aspect units
to address overheating concerns;
iii.
an additional condition to remove permitted
development rights for garage.
These amendments were carried
by 8 votes to 0.
In response to a point raised by Councillor Chamberlain, the Assistant
Director proposed amending wording to Condition 10 Cycle and Alley Way Security
to address potential crime focus concerns.
This amendment was carried
by 8 votes to 0.
Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to amend the Car Park Management Plan.
This amendment was carried
by 8 votes to 0.
The Committee:
A) Resolved (by 8
votes to 0) to grant approval of the reserved matters application in accordance with
the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report subject to agreeing the precise wording with the Chair of
amendments to:
i.
condition 10 (Cycle and Alley Way Security);
ii.
two additional conditions:
a.
24 Car Parking Management Plan;
b.
25 (removal of) Permitted Development Rights);
iii.
informatives:
a.
5. M4(3) Standard dwellings;
b.
6. south facing single aspect units.
B) to approve the
partial discharge of the following outline planning conditions (planning application
reference S/2682/13/OL) as they relate to the Phase 2 application proposals:
· Condition 12 (Hard and soft
landscaping);
· Condition 13 (Tree
retention/removal);
· Condition 14 (Local areas of play);
· Condition 16 (Allotment details);
· Condition 17 (Ecological
mitigation);
· Condition 19 (Pedestrian and cycle
routes);
· Condition 20 (Car parking);
· Condition 21 (Noise and insulation);
· Condition 23 (Details of refuse
storage);
· Condition 24 (Distribution of market
and affordable housing);
· Condition 25 (Mix of private
dwellings);
· Condition 27 (Code for Sustainable
Homes);
· Condition 28 (Compliance with site
wide sustainability strategy);
· Condition 30 (Cycle Parking);
· Condition 40 (Bird hazard
management);
· Condition 51 (Compliance with Code
for Sustainable Homes level 4 for all dwellings)
in accordance with
paragraph 255 of the Officer report.
Supporting documents: