Agenda item

The Committee received a reserved matters application.

 

The reserved matters application sought approval for the second housing phase (known as BDW2) including 323 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, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 28, 35, 40, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 69 pursuant to outline approval 07/0003/OUT

 

The Principal Planner updated their report by referring to the Amendment Sheet which read as follows:

 

Following publication of the agenda, a further representation was received from the owner/occupier of 29 Woodlark Road about drainage issues with particular interest in the works to the ditch to the rear of Woodlark Road and bunding. A link to the Committee report was provided and the relevant sections were highlighted showing how these matters have been assessed, including the recommended conditions condition 6 (landscape management and maintenance plan), condition 18 (ditch maintenance) and condition 19 (bund construction detail). The third party responded to advise their concerns had been addressed. A copy of the representation has been added to the application file

 

Mr Chris Fry (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee raised the following comments in response to the Officer’s presentation and report:

      i.         Thanked the Officers for working with the applicant to enable such positive changes in response to the previously refused application.

    ii.         The application was much improved which would benefit both current and future residents.

   iii.         Welcomed cycle parking at the front of the dwellings on some plots and queried how access to the cycle parking at the rear of other properties would be gained.

  iv.         Queried if it were possible to include a condition that would allow those car parking spaces to be used for more cycle parking (particularly for cargo bikes) or car club spaces.  Information should be supplied to homeowners to incentivise these initiatives.

    v.         It was vital to future proof all sites for adequate cycle and car club parking to assist in the reduction of carbon emissions in the city. 

  vi.         Would like to be certain that green roofs were standard for bins and cycle storage.

 vii.         Suggested there should be no permitted development on the site.

viii.         Expressed concern that additional equipment placed on the buildings by residents such as satellite dishes and tv ariels would eradicate the aesthetics of the architecture of the site and this should not be allowed to occur.

  ix.         Recommended that hedgehog holes were standard as part of the relevant fencing condition.

    x.         Worried that a desire line being created across the pavilion green could also be used by motorised two-wheel vehicles; this would create a risk to the children’s play area and was not good design.

  xi.         Suggested the hedgerow to the east of the allotments should be a footpath creating an easier route for residents to access the plots; asked if this could be supported as part of the landscape condition.

 xii.         Expressed concern at the four flats which had no outside amenity space. Suggested a small balcony could be installed for each flat and asked how close they were to communal open spaces.

xiii.         Asked who would take responsibility for the play spaces.

xiv.         Conveyed unease at the delay in phasing, such as the delay in installation of the Toucan Crossing on Huntingdon Road, the cycling upgrade on Histon Road and the temporary community centre as examples.

xv.         Questioned how the Committee could monitor the conditions placed on the application and others which had been agreed by the Committee; suggested the creation and maintenance of a risk register to track possible monitoring, delays and compliance.

xvi.         Requested an informative to Building Regulations Part O (Overheating) and F (Ventilation) were followed; these should apply to all future applications.

xvii.         Enquired what future proofing had been made to ensure that residents would be safeguarded from the buildings overheating and solar gain in summer.

xviii.         Queried what provisions had been made for passive cooling.

xix.         Important to ensure there is enough room for air source heat pumps; asked how this additional space could be guaranteed.

xx.         Welcomed the provisions of electric vehicle charging points but when combined with potential future heat pumps this would have a significant strain on the limited electric supply; the provision of solar photovoltaic panels had to be investigated.

xxi.         Questioned if the developers would be able to meet the future electricity needs of this site. 1 kilowatt per residential unit as referenced by the sustainability officer was just a start.

xxii.         Suggested the use of Smart Tariffs and Smart electric vehicle chargers on site.

xxiii.         Asked if buyers specify a heat pump and architectural features of their home.

 

The Principal Planner, the Delivery Manager Strategic Sites, the Sustainability Officer and Chair responded to the Committee’s comments with the following:

      i.         Cycle storage at the rear of the property could be accessed through the car port and not through the house.

    ii.         The car parking arrangements were different for each house type; the width of the car ports had been expanded to allow access to the cycle parking in accordance with guidance.

   iii.         Would look to see if and how cycle parking at the front of the properties could be incorporated for future phases.

  iv.         There was no requirement on the outline consent for car parking spaces to be retained. Future occupants would have the option to change the car parking spaces to cycle parking.

    v.         Car club spaces are secured via condition on the outline consent and are provided for in the Local Centre and BDW5/6 parcels. The outline consent was for a minimum number of car club parking spaces. Therefore, there was no upper limit to the number of spaces that could be provided on-site which could increase if there is demand. Since the outline consent had been granted in 2013, the popularity of car clubs had increased.

  vi.         Details of the green roofs for bin and cycle storage would be secured through the resubmission of information to discharge those conditions on the outline consent.

 vii.         Consideration had been given to whether balconies could be installed onto the four flats with no outside space. Inset balconies would take away some of the internal space and a hung balcony would not be possible. Tracking diagrams had suggested the overhang could cause issues for certain vehicles such as refuse trucks.

viii.         The two of the four flats highlighted were located centrally on site set in a mews area with shared surface spaces. The other two were in close proximity to a central park.

  ix.         This flat over garage house type has been previously used elsewhere on Cambridge growth sites. Officers would be reluctant to seek a condition for external amenity space to be added to these units because it could be unreasonable as it might not be possible to comply due to the constraints referenced.

    x.         Advised the Committee to consider the scheme that had been presented as a whole and that the outline consent does not require any external space standards to be met.

  xi.         Confirmed the City Council would be responsible for the maintenance of the play spaces.

 xii.         Advised that a meeting had been held with the County Council’s Highway Engineer to discuss the Toucan Crossing on Huntingdon Road. They were supportive of the delay in its delivery as there needed to be a certain volume of use before its installation. Did not believe the delay to be a safety issue.

xiii.         The Chair of the Committee had raised the issue with the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development of how the performance of developers across the planning service in terms of meeting Section 106 trigger points could be better monitored and enforced.   It was suggested that matter could be brought forward to a Member Briefing session for further discussion.

xiv.         The issue of overheating had been discussed in detail with the developer.

xv.         The scheme would be subject to the new Part F requirement under the Building Regulations with regard to ventilation.

xvi.         Condition 12 referenced the need for external space for air source heat pumps.

xvii.         Photovoltaic panels had been included across the site, at least 1 kilowatt of photovoltaic panels per residential unit. The developer would have discussed sufficient grid capacity to meet demand with UK Power Network.

xviii.         Work was currently being undertaken to look at the future electricity infrastructure and requirements for the city and Greater Cambridgeshire. This was primarily for new growth with allowances for the retrofit of existing stock.

xix.         The difficulty in buyers requesting additional technology was specifying these requirements at the right stage of the build, which was usually very early in the build process.

xx.         There was an issue of supply with the air source heat pumps therefore, any buyer should make their request before the build started.

xxi.         The landscape and play proposals for pavilion green have been discussed with the Landscape Team and City Council Streets and Open Spaces Team and designed to minimise conflict.  Nonetheless, further discussions would be held with the applicant on alternative proposals to address concerns raised.  Recommend that outline condition 14 relating to hard and soft landscaping scheme is not approved today allowing for a resubmission to be made with alternative proposals after further discussions between the applicant and planning officers.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed an additional informative supporting the transformation of car parking spaces to car club spaces or alternative cycle parking space.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed the following amendments to the Officer’s recommendations:

·           Removal of permitted developments rights with regard to installation of satellite dishes and aerials.

·           Removal of permitted development rights regarding extensions to properties.

 

These amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed the following informative to the Officer’s recommendations:

·    Additional informative regarding Building Regulations Parts F and O.

 

This informative was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to:

               i.                  Approve planning permission of reserved matters application reference 21/04431/REM, subject to

a)            the conditions and informatives set out in the Officer’s report (section 25) from p105 of the agenda pack:

·     an additional informative regarding supporting the transformation of car parking spaces to car club spaces or alternative cycle parking space – with delegated authority to Officers to agree the wording;

·    the removal of permitted development rights regarding the conversion of garages to a habitable space, with delegated authority to Officers to agree the wording;

·    the removal of permitted developments rights with regard to installation of satellite dishes and aerials with delegated authority to Officers to agree the wording;

·    the removal of permitted development rights regarding extensions to properties with delegated authority to Officers to agree the wording; and 

·    an additional informative regarding Building Regulations in regard to sustainability.

              ii.         Authority delegated to Officers to carry through minor amendments to those conditions and informatives (and include others considered appropriate and necessary) prior to the issuing of the planning permission.

            iii.         Approve / not approve partial discharge of the following outline planning conditions (planning application reference 07/0003/OUT) in relation to the BDW2 parcel reserved matters according to the recommendations for each condition set out in the table below (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined :

 

Condition Submitted	Recommendation
Condition 8 Design Code Compliance	Part discharge
Condition 10 Youth Facility and Children’s Play Provision	Not approved
Condition 14 Soft and Hard Landscaping	Part discharge  Not approved
Condition 17 Tree and Hedges Protection	Not approved
Condition 18 Tree Protection	Not approved
Condition 22 Allotment Strategy	Not approved
Condition 25 Affordable Housing	Part discharge
Condition 26 Accessible Dwellings	Part discharge
Condition 28 Renewable Energy	Part discharge
Condition 35 Detailed Surface Water Strategy	Part discharge
Condition 40 Ecological Conservation Management Plan Statement	Part discharge
Condition 49 Secure Parking of Bicycles	Not approved
Condition 52 Construction Management Plan	Part discharge
Condition 58 Noise Assessment for future residents	Part discharge
Condition 62 Domestic and Trade Waste	Not approved
Condition 63 Construction Waste Management	Part discharge
Condition 66 Lighting	Not approved
Condition 69 Public Art	Not approved

 

*Officer to discuss alternative proposals for pavilion green open space desire lines and to secure hedgehog holes with the developer.