Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for full
planning permission.
As
part of the Principal Planner’s officer presentation,
she
updated her report:
·
by
referring to
representations listed on the Amendment Sheet
and further details contained on the Council’s planning
portal / file;
· noted
a
further
letter
had been received the day before the
Committee
from
Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close residents which had
also been uploaded onto the portal planning
file;
· Councillor Simon Smith
(in
his capacity as Ward
Councillor)
had also emailed the
Case Officer suggesting
amendments to condition 43 - landscape condition and condition
52
- service and delivery plan;
·
advised
that the application had originally
been
heard on 16 March 2022 but a decision
was deferred as the Committee sought
more affordable private rented homes be
provided as part of
the proposal. The
applicant confirmed an increase in the number of affordable
rented
homes from 37 as originally
proposed to 58.
All the
affordable housing would be provided on site.
The Committee received representations
in objection to the application from the following
· Residents
of
Howes Place.
·
Residents of Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close
The representation
on behalf of residents
in Howes Place covered the following issues:
i.
Howes Place was recognised as a local heritage asset for the
architectural interest of its
buildings,
the street scene value of the buildings setting
within formal landscaping and the importance of NIAB and Howes Place in the
social and economic history of Cambridge.
ii.
Noted that the Committee would be asked to consider officer
recommendation A or B.
iii.
Recommendation A was informed by the
place
making principle of permeability and connectivity which paid no regard to:
a.
the exemplar of historic place making vision and urban and landscape
design for Howes Place which established a community life of peace and
tranquillity after a period of death and destruction during the First World War
b.
the irreversible harm to
the heritage assets of Howes Place and the close-knit
community ethos nurtured by future generations
c. intensifying
the use of Howes Place which would
put pedestrians and cyclists in an environment of undue hazard where vehicles
would be manoeuvring and where pedestrians and cyclists may not be expected.
vi.Recommendation B (also known as the ‘heritage
access arrangements’) would
protect Howes Place as required by Local Plan Policy 62. The number of
protected trees requiring removal was
reduced and hedgerows would be introduced to enhance the delineation between
Howes Place and the development site.
vii. Howes Place was not designed to service a
200-bed Aparthotel
nor to
provide pedestrian and cycle access to 300 residential dwellings.
viii. Option B has
been jointly developed between residents of Howes Place and the applicant. With
the exception of refuse collection from the Aparthotel,
all vehicle, pedestrian,
and cycle connections would be onto Lawrence Weaver Road, a purpose-built
highway with
dedicated footpaths and cycle lanes.
ix. Option B avoided
Howes Place being used as a
short route for pedestrians and cyclists from the
proposed development to the City
centre and being used as overflow for amenity space and car parking.
x. Option B protected the heritage assets of
Howes Place and improved highways safety. It was supported
by
the residents of Howes Place, the applicant and City and County Councillors for
Castle Ward.
The representations on behalf of residents in
Plymouth
Close
and Falmouth Close covered the following issues:
i.
objected
to the proposed terrace buildings C, D and E
ii.
requested
the Committee adopted the proposed amendments to
protect the amenity, privacy, and well-being of current and future residents
iii.
wished
to enjoy family life without:
a.
the privacy of bedrooms, living rooms and back
gardens being compromised due to overlooking from 37 first and second floor
windows and external walkways
b.
resident’s’ domestic peace being disturbed by
noise from the proposed three storey blocks due to back-to-back distances
of 18.5m comprising a 12.5m multi-functional space providing a 3-6m wide
footpath, four dedicated communal children and teenager play areas within 3m of
residential boundaries and three cycle storage buildings
abutting residents’ garden fences.
iv.
inconsistency
in planning between the Darwin Green and the NIAB developments. For Darwin Green,
a parameter plan ensured residents of eleven existing streets
such as Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close
would benefit from
limited overlooking and loss of privacy due
to:
a.
new
development limited to two floor houses with permitted development rights removed for dormers
b. minimum back-to-back distances of 22.5m with
private gardens between the houses
c. overlooking would be minimised by placing bathrooms to the
rear, offsetting the houses with breaks between pairs of semis and short
terraces.
v.
their streets
would
be harmed from maximum overlooking and loss of privacy due to:
a.
three
floor flats
b. back-to-back distance of
18.5m with a 12.5m multi-function space, which
was materially
different from backing onto a private garden
c. overlooking maximised by a continuous line of 19
first floor and 18 second floor bedrooms with external walkways which would allow
residents to gaze down to gardens, kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms.
vi.
asked the Committee to make the following
amendments:
a. to limit the height of the proposed buildings
C, D and E to 2 floors
b.
to
remove all external walkways to buildings
C, D and E and the party terrace at building E
c.
to increase the back-to-back distance from 18.5m
to a minimum of 22.5m.
d. to re-design the space
between the flats and resident’s’ boundary fence as follows:
i.
to relocate the four proposed communal children
and teenage play spaces 7m away from the boundary
ii.
to condition the
hours of use of the communal children
and teenage play spaces and sources of noise nuisance at all hours
iii.
to
plant and maintain shrubs and trees on the additional 4m of land together with
a 3m high, 1m wide hedge along the boundary
iv.
to
replace the three proposed cycle stores of an unspecified height to abut garden
fences with basement cycle parking spaces.
Peter McKeown
(Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.
Councillor Simon
Smith
(City (Castle)
Ward
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.noting
that
a Development Control Forum (DCF) had taken
place regarding this application on the 4 November 2021 and that Committee
Members
had noted that a better outcome could be achieved. Gave credit to the applicant
for their collaboration with Howes Place residents
and agreeing the ‘Option
B heritage access arrangements’.
ii.the
massing
of the development had not been addressed
- residents at
Falmouth Close and Plymouth Close would be the most adversely affected
iii.it
was a material planning consideration that cycle parking and car parking only
met within the red edge line.
iii.expressed
concerns regarding overlooking due to 3 storey buildings
namely,
C, D and E which affected Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close
residents
iv.noted
comments made at the DCF that Howes Place was a local heritage asset which needed
to be protected and enhanced. That there should be no vehicular access via
Howes Place. The desire line for access needed to be via Lawrence Weaver Road.
v.noted
officer recommendation Option A
which officers stated would allow residents to access Howes Green. Residents
of Howes Place had
signed a petition saying that they did not want this
vi.noted
that the site had a
detailed area conservation appraisal drawn up but that
this had
been
withdrawn pending the submission of a planning application.
vii.only
recommendation B would comply with Local Plan Policy 62
viii.noted
in relation to the prior approval permission that the applications for the
discharge of conditions 2 and 3 were refused.
ix.asked
the Committee to make the following amendments to protect
the amenity of Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close residents:
a. to
limit
the height of the proposed buildings C, D and E to 2 floors
b. to remove
all external balconies and walkways
to buildings C, D and E and the party terrace at building E
c. to increase
the back-to-back distance from 18.5m to a minimum of 22.5m
d. to re-design the space
between the flats and boundary fence as follows:
i.
to relocate
the four proposed communal children and teenage play spaces 7m away from the
boundary
ii.
to condition hours of
use of the communal children and teenage play spaces and sources of noise
nuisance at all hours
iii.
to plant and maintain shrubs
and trees on the additional 4m of land together with a 3m high, 1m wide hedge
along the boundary
iv.
to relocate
the cycle parking to the basement
of
the car park.
The Committee
Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor Payne
(City
Castle
Ward Councillor):
i.noted
positive
and constructive meetings had taken place between
the applicant and the residents of Howes Place and Darwin Green and that these
had
resulted in the development of mutually agreeable alternative ‘heritage’ access
arrangements (referred to as Option B) for the proposed development.
ii.there
was
unanimous support from the residents of Howes Place for the ‘heritage’ access arrangements
(Option B) on the following grounds:
a. with
the exception of refuse collection for the aparthotel
and emergency services, the ‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) removed
all vehicle connections between the proposed development and Howes Place
b. the
‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) included
four dedicated cycle and pedestrian access points and one multi-modal access
point which provided residents of
and visitors to, the proposed development with direct and
easy connectivity to the purpose-built roadways, footpaths and cycle lanes on
Lawrence Weaver Road and fully support sustainable
transport
requirements. Noted the County
Council needed to adopt
Lawrence Weaver Road so that the
legislation to protect cycle lanes from being used for parked cars could
be implemented
c. the
‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) significantly improved
highways
safety
by removing the multi-modal and cycle and pedestrian access points on Howes
Place (an unadopted, poorly constructed, unlit,
and narrow residential street) proposed under the Option A access arrangements
d. the
‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) minimised
the harm to the appearance, character and setting of the heritage assets of
Howes Place by:
i.
reducing
the number of protected mature pleached lime trees requiring removal to
as
few as three trees;
ii.
significantly
reducing the scale of hard landscaping works to the reconstruction /
widening
of up to fifty (50) metres of existing footpaths
iii.
introducing
additional hedgerows to create a natural delineation between Howes Place and
the proposed development.
iii.the
‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) minimise the harm to the amenity of
current and future residents of Howes Place by:
a. avoiding
the creation of short cuts along Howes Place which would divert pedestrians and
cyclists travelling to and from the City
centre, including electric scooters and motorised two-wheeled vehicles, away
from Lawrence Weaver Road and onto Howes Place and place both pedestrians and
cyclists in an environment of undue hazard where vehicles are manoeuvring and
where pedestrians and cyclists may not be expected
b.
avoiding the
creation of Howes Place as the ‘back yard’ of the proposed development by
removing direct and easy access to overflow amenity space and car parking in
Howes Place for residents of, and visitors to, the proposed development
c. avoiding
the use of Howes Place for commercial vehicles / deliveries and drops-offs and
pick-ups for residents of, and visitors to,
the proposed development, including the central open public space and amenities.
iv.supported
the adoption of the ‘heritage’ access arrangements (Option B) in
the event that permission was
granted.
The
Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor S.
Baigent
(City Castle Ward
Councillor):
i.
noted
that
members of the Committee would be asked
to make a choice between the access Option A and Option B, the heritage option.
Felt
the
latter option protected Howes Place
ii.
had asked
residents to explain why Howes Place was important which brought to life
the enduring impact of great place making.
iii.
voice
of a resident who has brought up three children in Howes Place
a. referred to
the history of Howes Place where the vision
for a self-contained community informed the design, layout, landscape
and how their vision and the place and the people shaped family and community
life over four generations;
b. the first residents were
former First World War soldiers and their families. There was a communal
laundry, a communal hot water system and communal gardens to the front and rear;
c. the next generation of
residents were the widows and families of RAF personnel who were killed during
the Second World War. As these families grew, their homes and community ethos
were passed to a new generation of owner occupiers and tenants;
d. my experience of living
here is that you get to know everyone and share responsibilities with each
other; we look out for the safety and care of the children and the elderly.
It’s an enduring joy to see the children playing in the front gardens and
learning how to ride their bicycles in the street knowing they are safe;
e. howes Place is
an
unusual and unique environment which sat
in people’s hearts all their lives.
iv.
Voice of a new resident:
a. Cambridge is a beautiful ancient City now
plagued by areas of cheap looking newbuild apartment blocks. These developments
have no soul or longevity we must challenge their free expansion and protect
the City’s heritage so it can be enjoyed by future generations;
b. Howes Place is a beautiful and quiet part of
Cambridge, and
the Option B access arrangements are the only way to protect it;
v.
Voices of long-term residents:
a. noted
that the developer’s architect states
Howes
Place was
an underused asset commenting
it was their home,
community and wasn’t an
asset to monetise;
b. to be linked to the
proposed development (of a 201-room
Aparthotel
and 297 flats) would completely overwhelm the 21
homes in Howes Place;
c. Howes Place was
like a country lane never
intended as
a multi-modal route for a large-scale development.
d. Option A would bring irreversible change resident’s children
would not be safe to play together
and we would lose our community spirit;
e. the
ideas were
out
of a textbook and didn’t make
sense in Howes Place which was designed to be a self-contained place and
community;
f. it
was
the Council’s responsibility to plan for better new neighbourhoods, not to
destroy existing ones which work.
Asked
why
the
Council considered Option
A when there was no benefit
to existing residents and no need to do it;
g. Howes Place was
a quiet oasis which needed to
be saved so future generations could enjoy
it,
as previous people had;
h. it
was only after the Development Control Forum that the developer began to listen
- resident’s
agree
Option B was a good solution.
v.
agreed with resident’s
that Option
B was
the only option which
would
protect Howes Place in perpetuity.
The
Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor Rae
(County
Ward Councillor):
i.
supported Option
B (Heritage option) access arrangements and opposed Option
A;
ii.
noted
that Option
B was
supported by residents
of Howes Place and fellow Castle Ward Councillors.
This
support was based on
the following grounds:
iii.
option
B (the 'heritage' option) access arrangements removed
all vehicle, pedestrian and cycle connections between the proposed development
and Howes Place except for refuse collection for the aparthotel
and emergency services.
iv.
option B fully supports sustainable
transport
requirements as it includes four dedicated cycle and pedestrian access points
and one multi-modal access point. These would provide residents of, and
visitors to,
the proposed development with direct and easy connectivity to the
purpose-built, lit and adoptable footways, cycle paths and highway on Lawrence
Weaver Road whilst
fully
supporting
sustainable
transport
requirements. These are the direct routes to the facilities of Darwin Green and
Eddington on which residents of the new development will need to rely due to
the lack of on-site facilities notably amenity space.
v.
option B significantly improves highways
safety
by removing the possibility of turning Howes Place (an unadopted, poorly
constructed, unlit and narrow residential lane) into a busy multi-modal and
cycle and pedestrian access route points as
proposed under the Option A site / access arrangements.
vi.
option B minimises the harm to the appearance, character and setting of
the heritage assets of Howes Place by:
vii.
reducing the number of protected mature pleached lime trees to be
removed to (2) trees;
viii.
significantly reducing the scale of hard landscaping works for the
reconstruction / widening of up to fifty (50) metres of existing footpaths; and
ix.
introducing additional hedgerows to create a natural delineation between
Howes Place and the proposed development.
x.
option B minimises the harm to the amenity of current and future
residents of Howes Place by:
xi.
avoiding the use of Howes Place as a short cut (primary desire line) for
which it is unfit;
xii.
avoiding the creation of Howes Place as the 'back yard' of the proposed
development by removing direct and easy access to overflow amenity space and
car parking in Howes Place for residents of, and visitors to, the proposed
development; and
xiii.
avoiding the bad neighbour anti- social use of Howes Place for
commercial vehicles / deliveries and drops-offs and pick-ups for residents of,
and visitors to, the proposed development, most notably the Apart-Hotel and the
late night opening micro-brewery and bar.
The Director
of Planning and Sustainable Development, Principal
Planner, Legal Officer and Principal Urban
Designer
[Principal Development
Management Engineer made the
following in response to issues raised by public speakers:
i.
noted
the comments which had been made on behalf of public
speakers and Ward
Councillors
requesting amendments to the application
but the siting, design, and layout of the
development was fixed
within the current application. Changes to building heights or relocating
buildings would be substantive changes to the physical form of the development
proposal
and
could not be addressed by planning conditions.
If Members
found these issues unacceptable then the appropriate
option
open to the Committee
would be to refuse the application;
ii.
noted
reference to a Prior Approval Permission and cycle parking concerns
associated
with
that planning
permission
but commented that this application should be viewed separately.
This
application could not be
used to resolve issues regarding conditions
attached to another permission
iii.
responded
to concerns raised regarding overlooking noting
that the
Mews
units intended
to back onto Plymouth Close were 2.5 storeys high
rather than 3 storeys high. Condition 35 should provide
screening to open circulation areas
with the screens expected
to be 1.7m in height. 18m separation distances between
buildings had been used on Lawrence Weaver
Road. The land
to the east of buildings C, D and E would be a communal private garden area. It
would not be accessible by the general public but would be accessed by
the residents of the Mews buildings. This area would have ‘play along the way’
features and would not have features like slides or swings. it
would be possible to consider planting
to provide a buffer in relation to overlooking concerns;
iv.
the scale
and massing of the Mews buildings was considered at pre-application stage and
the Urban Design Officers were comfortable with the relationship;
v.
confirmed
there was to be a
15-year
clawback mechanism for
the build to rent units in the s106 planning agreement,
which meant that
if, during that
15
year
period the units
were not used as build to rent units,
then
compensation would be payable;
vi.
confirmed
the affordable private rented units would be provided in perpetuity
and in the event these units
were taken out of affordable housing
use,
then the developer would need to provide an
affordable housing commuted sum
(based on market values)
to the Council
for the loss of on-Site provision.
The
Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report:
i.
queried
reference to 2 and 3 miles in relation to affordable housing allocation;
ii.
queried
if
the ownership
of the build to rent flats could be controlled
(page 34, paragraph 85 of the officer’s report);
iii.
queried
where the 24-hour management
of the build to rent affordable units would be;
iv.
welcomed
the additional
affordable housing provision on site;
v.
noted play provision
would also be available off site at Darwin Green;
vi.
queried
the additional
conditions
put forward by Councillor S. Smith;
vii.
asked for clarification on
why
the developer did not need
to provide 40% affordable housing;
viii.
asked if buildings C, D
and E could be removed from the development in response to concerns raised by
public speakers;.
ix.
queried
why a shortfall in open space provision should be compensated by improvements
to facilities off-site;
x.
welcomed
improvements in sustainability and energy but queried why air source heat pumps
were not being proposed;.
xi.
wanted to see green
roofs and PV panels and
asked if flats had their own energy meters;
xii.
noted
that condition 29 required the provision of at least one
rapid electric charge point
but noted that if only one
was installed it might
negatively impact residents who did not have the charge connector for the unit
which was installed;
xiii.
asked if the electricity
supplier
would need
to increase capacity
to be able to service the development;
xiv.
queried
why there was no reference to the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD);
xv.
asked if the scheme
included a
grey
water recycling
system;
xvi.
noted
the felling of 10 Pleached
Lime
trees asking
if any of the trees would
be replanted elsewhere;
xvii.
asked
where
the food
growing space would be and who would look after
the it
if
residents did not;
xviii.
noted
that
residents of Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close
had asked for a 3m wide and 1m high hedge
to be planted - asking
if this could be conditioned;
xix.
noted
the Aparthotel
facilities would be open to the general public enquiring
how traffic and noise generated by these facilities would be monitored;
xx.
noted
that two
car club spaces were proposed asking
if
this facility were to prove
popular could more
could be provided;
xxi.
that vehicles
parked in cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver Road and expressed concerns about
overspill parking;
xxii.
noted
residents had expressed concerns about overlooking and the varying distances
between blocks;
xxiii.
queried
the level of discount to be offered
to residents
who wanted to use the amenity facilities provided as
part of the new development;
xxiv.
queried
what play equipment would be installed at the ‘play along the way’ area;
xxv.
queried
the height of the sheds and
xxvi.
expressed
concerns about healthcare contribution
and noted the existing
healthcare capacity issues in the area.
The
Joint
Director of Planning and Economic Development, Principal
Planner, Legal Officer and Urban Design Officer said the following in response
to Member
questions:
i.
the affordable housing criteria was two
miles for people who had a local connection and three
miles for those who had no
work
connection to the
area;
ii.
Central Government was keen to stimulate private sector investment, therefore
it had changed
the minimum requirement in
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for affordable
build
to rent provision
down from
40% to 20%;
iii.
Building G would contain
the management
facilities on the ground floor;
iv.
off-site mitigation
contributions
for
public
open space would go to Histon Road Recreational Ground
which is 900m from
the development;
v.
a s106 Agreement
would secure planning obligations to secure the affordable housing for
15 yearsin
perpetuity with a financial
clawback
mechanism to be applied
in the event of any affordable units taken
out of affordable use.
Restrictions could not be placed on land ownership
which prevented alienation;
vi.
to
remove
buildings C, D and E from the application would be
a fundamental alteration to the scheme before the Committee going
to the heart of the application.
If
Members
felt strongly that these buildings were inappropriate then Members
would need to consider refusing
the application;
vii.
with reference to the
additional conditions requested by Councillor S.
Smith,
the
additional protection to boundary treatments could be included in condition 43.
The amendments to condition 52 regarding controlling vehicle movements should
not restrict
emergency vehicle movements. Noted that the final condition
listed in Appendix 2 regarding the dry riser was not
numbered but required
the submission of details in the interests of residential amenity;
viii.
roof terraces and courtyards were
not identified in the Councils open space
planning
policy however officers felt there
to be a good level
of amenity space being
provided on site. In some circumstances improvements to open space areas off
site could be proposed;
ix.
it was an all-electric development with air source heat pumps for the Aparthotel;
x.
the
development would have biodiverse roof space including PV panels. Noted that
there would need to be a trade-off regarding one or more renewable energy
sources for example PV panels and air source heat pumps;
xi.
condition 29 required a site-
wide electric
policy. This was a standard condition applied to developments of this scale.
Noted that the condition required a minimum of one
EV charging point,
but most housebuilders put in more;
xii.
the Biodiversity SPD had only recently been adopted by the Councils,
but the Council’s Biodiversity Officer had been consulted throughout the scheme;
xiii.
Planning policy required water efficiencies of 110 litres per
person per day.
The
applicant had agreed a reduction
to 100 litres
per person per day,
which would be achieved through condition 40. Rainwater harvesting was included
in the development;
xiv.
noted
that there had been electricity capacity issues in Cambridge. The developer
would need to ensure a connection was put into the grid;
xv.
understood
residents would be responsible for their own electricity bills but water
charges would be included within the unit’s
service
charge;
xvi.
a tree strategy plan had been received which provided details of trees to
be felled and those to be re-planted;
xvii.
the growing vegetable space would be contained on roof terraces
for which further
details were required as part of the Landscape
Plan.
The Management Company would be responsible for monitoring this area;
xviii.
officers could look at plant species to provide the hedge buffer
requested by Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close residents;
xix.
the
Aparthotel
/ gym facilities were ancillary to the development. The swimming pool within
the Aparthotel
was
not the size of the Parkside
pool and it was anticipated that
only local people would use it and
therefore its use would
notgenerate a lot of
extra vehicle movements from users;
xx.
The applicant had proposed two car club spaces
- consideration could be given to amending the
condition to permit more if the need arose;
xxi.
noted
the
cycle
lanes were around the width of a car and that once roads were adopted by the highway
authority
Traffic
Regulation Orders (TROs) could be introduced which would be monitored and
enforced by Local Parking Enforcement Officers. Currently
about 35m of Lawrence Weaver Road was adopted highway with
the
remainder was the
responsibility of the developer. In the longer term the Darwin Green area would
be covered by parking restrictions. There were designated visitor parking
spaces in the basement of the Aparthotel;
xxii.
commented that separation distances varied
between 18-21m between the proposed and existing properties. 18m separation
distance was considered acceptable and was identified elsewhere on the Darwin
Green development. 18m was considered good practice in urban design terms.
Privacy screens would help to obscure windows behind the screens but were
likely to be ‘slatted’ to allow light into the bedrooms;
xxiii.
residents would be offered a 30% discount if
they wanted to use the amenity facilities being
provided as part of the development;
xxiv.
only
residents of buildings C, D and E would have access to the ‘play along the way’
space. There would not be
swings or a slide provided but there would be features such
as stepping
stones;
and
xxv.
the sheds would be single storey, 1-2m in height having
a green roof so there would be no overbearing impact. Noted that condition 43
provided scope to finesse the citing of the cycle store.
The Joint Director of
Planning and Economic Development summarised the following amendments
which
were proposed arising from concerns
raised by Members during
debate:
i.
minor
revision to condition 7 to include car clubs;
ii.
amendment to condition 29 increasing
the number of EV charging points to two;
iii.
revise condition 43 under point (c)
to include
b.
provision and maintenance of a 2m high 1m wide hedgerow along the
boundary with a 1.2m mesh fence pending the maturity of the new hedgerow
(subject to the needs for accommodating agreed vehicle access for services,
refuse and emergency).
c. a scheme for the installation of a new hedge
along the boundary of the site with both Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close.
iv.
revise condition 54 which was incomplete adding
the details of locations of all dry rises of the Aparthotel
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority;
v.
an additional condition to require details
of cycle parking for
Buildings C,D
and E to be
submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority;
vi.
the Chair and Vice-Chair to be consulted on the final
terms of s106 Agreement
prior to completion;
vii.
the s106 agreement to include a 30% fee reduction for residents
wishing
to use the amenity facilities provided as part of the development;
and
viii.
delegate
drafting
the
amendments in respect of
the condition amendments
and additional condition
together with
the terms of and the completion of the s106 Agreement
to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Development.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 6
votes to 2) to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with Officer recommendation Option
B detailed in paragraph 269 of the report, for the
reasons set out therein, subject to:
i.
the prior completion of an Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as set out in Appendix 1 to the Officer’s
report;
ii.
the planning conditions and informatives
contained in Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report with delegated authority to Officers:
a.
independently to negotiate, settle and complete the terms of the s106
Agreement substantially reflecting the obligations set out in Appendix 1 of the
Officer’s
report
subject,
before
completing the
Agreement to Officer
consultation
with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee;
b.
independently to settle any minor non-significant amendments to the
conditions;
c.
in the case of any significant amendment or the introduction of
additional conditions to do so in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of
Committee;
iii.
delegated authority to Officers
to
draft and include the following amendments
and additions
to the following conditions:
a.
minor
revision to condition 7 to include car clubs;
b.
amendment to condition 29 increasing
the number of EV charging points to two;
c. amend
condition
43 under point c to include boundary treatments including the type,
positions, design, species and materials of boundary treatments to be erected
as follows:
i.
retention and protection of existing mature hedgerows along the north
western boundary between Howes Place and the proposed development;
ii.
provision and maintenance of a 2m high 1m wide hedgerow along the
boundary with a 1.2m mesh fence pending the maturity of the new hedgerow
(subject to the needs for accommodating agreed vehicle access for services, refuse
and emergency).
iii. a scheme for the installation of a new hedge along the boundary of the
site with both Plymouth Close and Falmouth Close.
d.
amend
condition
54 which was incomplete so
as to
include
the
locations
of all dry rises of the Aparthotel
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority;
e. an additional condition requiring
the submission of details of cycle parking
for Building C D and
E for
approval
by the Local Planning Authority;
and
f. to seek a commitment in the s106 Agreement
to secure a
30% cost
reduction for
residents’
use of
the amenity
facilities provided as part of the development
– subject to such a
commitment (if
in the form of a planning obligation)
being CIL compliant.
Supporting documents: