A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item

Agenda item

21/03619/REM - Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road, Cambridge (Darwin Green 1 BDW 5 & 6)

Minutes:

The Committee received a reserved matters application for fifth and sixth housing phases and Allotment 3 (collectively known as BDW5 and 6) including 411 dwellings and allotments with associated internal roads, car parking, landscaping, amenity and public open space. The reserved matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale related partial discharge of conditions 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 40, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 69 pursuant to outline approval 07/0003/OUT.

 

The Committee noted the amendments to conditions 3 and 13 and the additional condition regarding obscured glazing contained in the Amendment Sheet.

 

The Committee received two representations in objection to the application from local residents.

 

The first representation covered the following issues:

  i.  They had emailed Committee members in advance of the meeting with their concerns.

  ii.  Had met with Ray Houghton, (the Applicant’s representative) to discuss concerns and felt that the only suitable option would be to remove Plot 202 or place it elsewhere on the site as the current position would cause a detrimental and overbearing impact on the amenity of their property.

  iii.  Was disappointed that a workable solution had not been accepted.

  iv.  Plot 202 impacted on the street scene of Martingale Close.

  v.  Suggested the space vacated by Plot 202 could alternatively be used as a wildlife corridor.

  vi.  Asked that they were afforded the same rights, amenity and enjoyment as every other resident along the eastern boundary of the site.

 vii.  Asked the Committee to refuse the application due to the unacceptable overbearing impact of the development on the neighbouring properties. 

 

The second representation covered the following issues:

  i.  The landscape masterplan bore no resemblance to the original design which had been circulated by the developers.

  ii.  The original plans should be retained. No privacy would be protected by the new plans.

 iii.  Noted that tree canopy was important to provide benefits to residents.

iv.  Asked the Committee not to approve the application without the improvement of planting in the area.

 

(Ray Houghton) (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report.

  i.  The effect of Plot 202 on the residential amenity of existing properties.

  ii.  Compliance with fire safety regulations.

  iii.  Requested the removal of Permitted Development rights for above garage spaces to retain amenity space.

  iv.  Queried the landscape condition.

  v.  Queried allotment phasing.

  vi.  Queried garden size.

 vii.  Requested an amendment to condition 4 so that this referred to EV charging points not ducting.

viii.  Requested an informative regarding cargo bike parking provision for visitors and residents.

  ix.  Expressed concerns about Plot 202 and why this was a marker building.

  x.  Expressed concerns regarding Plots 197 and 312.

  xi.  Asked for clarification regarding the clustering requirements.

 xii.  Asked for clarification regarding space standards.

xiii.  Asked for the objector’s photographs to be shown to the Committee.

xiv.  Asked what community facilities would be available.

xv.  Asked if the internal roads would be adopted.

xvi.  Asked if there was any provision for lifetime homes.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Officer said the following:

  i.  Did not feel the impact of Plot 202 was at a level to require a review of the proposals.

  ii.  The Fire Service had not raised any objections to the proposed development and had only requested fire hydrants.

  iii.  The tree planting met the landscaping requirements and had been approved by the Landscape Officer.

  iv.  Allotment phasing was set out in the allotment plan which had been approved at the outline application stage.

  v.  There was no minimum size for gardens set out in the outline permission, most were approximately 40 square metres although noted there were some smaller units.

  vi.  Enhancements between the proposed and existing properties would be improved through the arboricultural assessment.

 vii.  A cargo bike informative could be included. She stated she was not recommending the discharge of condition 49 relating to bicycles.

viii.  The intention for Plot 202 to be a marker building was a strategy with the Design Code.

  ix.  The units were under the clustering requirements except for block F1 which had 13 units and block P1 and Q1 which had 26 units instead of 25 units.

  x.  The internal layout had been assessed to be flexible enough to accommodate the number of beds proposed per unit.

  xi.  The houses on the eastern elevation were not added late and had been included in the pre-application discussions. Officers had visited the site and concluded they were happy with the views.

 xii.  A community facility was being provided which would serve the whole of the Darwin Green development. It was not located within the site boundary.

xiii.  Confirmed the internal roads would be constructed to adoptable standards.

xiv.  Confirmed there was a condition which required 15% of the homes to be accessible and adaptable. 

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved by the exercise of one single vote taking together paragraphs 227 and 228 of the Officer recommendation to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendations set out in paragraph 227 and to approve or refuse the partial discharge of the conditions as set out in paragraph 228, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

  i.  the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report; and

  ii.  the amendments contained in the Amendment Sheet; and

  iii.  amendments to the following conditions with the detailed wording delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair:

a.  condition 18 to extend the removal of Permitted Development rights to integral terraces and to remove Permitted Development rights from all dwellings along the eastern boundary.

b.  condition 4 to refer to EV charge points and not ducting, and

  iv.  an additional modification condition:

a.  to remove Plot 202 in its entirety from the scheme and

b.  the review / redesign of Plots 197 and 312 with the detailed wording being delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair; and

  v.  an informative included on the planning permission in respect of cargo bike parking provision for visitors and residents.

Supporting documents: