Agenda item

The Committee received a reserved matters application for the approval for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 373 dwellings, access roads, cycle and pedestrian routes, cycle and car parking, landscaping, utilities and associated ancillary structures at Lots S1 and S2, North West Cambridge Development following outline planning permission S/1886/11 as varied by planning permission S/2036/13/VC.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Huntingdon Road.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          Huntingdon Road and Girton residents had been severely negatively impacted by the Eddington centre development.

     ii.          Referred to comments submitted by residents on the original application, many of them did not receive notice of the revised application.

   iii.          Issues with the Edington development had been going on for circa a decade but the final stage S3 (and associated infrastructure) were the applications which particularly concerned residents, being directly to the rear of their properties. Looking out of the rear windows of some of the properties, one could see the impact of stage 1 – instead of hedges with low lying fields beyond, there were huge mountains of spoil, only grassed after much agitation, which towered over 8 foot hedges. When created, these ‘mountains’ caused disruption plus noise and air pollution, and appeared to be permanent.

   iv.          Requested a construction management plan to mitigate issues such as anti-social work hours or inadvertent spoil mounds.

    v.          Residents’ gardens were now prone to flooding, believed to be a result of the huge mounds created at the back of their properties where water run off rates as well as underground water streams may have resulted in rising water tables. Residents had no opportunity to be made aware or to object to the spoil mounds and believed they should have required detailed planning permission.

   vi.          Queried what was happening to the existing large rubble mountains on the S1/2 site? Expected clear conditions that when removed they were not put anywhere near residents.

 vii.          Noted the encroachment, rather than redesign, since the discovery of the incorrectly assumed boundary lines on the other side of the S1/S2 development. The designers had shifted the whole development 5 metres west, due to the boundary line discovery. This increased the encroachment on and coalescence with Girton properties (especially once S3 is built) - which the North West Action Plan said was to be avoided. The same goes for some of the increase in height of some of the buildings. Expressed concern this gave little or no reassurance that anything in the original masterplan could be relied upon.

viii.          Residents had no confidence in the University or developers being a considerate neighbour - or contractor, given experience to date and so needed clear conditions and monitoring.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          The proposal departed from the Design Code and planning conditions.

     ii.          Expressed concern:

a.    Local Plan criteria was too readily set aside.

b.    Loss of privacy due to northern and eastern boundary treatment.

c.    Insufficient Swales.

d.    The hydrology of the area would be changed by the development.

e.    Loss of trees.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          Larger and denser properties were proposed but there was no update to environmental data in the Officer’s report (this should be reviewed/revised).

     ii.          The wildlife corridor was insufficient and needed better security.

   iii.          There was no provision for management of construction work eg work hours. Residents had endured issues from other applications and expected them to re-occur.

 

Mr Penfold (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Chair agreed that one of the Objectors could display a diagram to illustrate their concern that buildings on the northern and eastern boundaries were higher density than described in the agenda pack. The Principal Planning Officer referred to the site plan in his presentation. The development complied with the Design Code although density was higher.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

      i.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Overlooking of other properties.

b.    Overheating due to single aspect properties.

c.    Ventilation.

d.    Building blocks were too long (their outline needed to be broken up).

e.    Trees that had been planted were already dying and needed replacing.

     ii.          Queried if modifications to north and south facing apartments were appropriate eg location of windows and balconies.

   iii.          Needed to implement and strengthen existing landscape conditions. Queried if greenspaces would be developed for housing in future.

 

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

      i.          The surrounding area to the north and south of the site would be developed in future as shown on the parameter plan. The hatched lines were multi-use areas that could be housing or other uses. They would start as green spaces then be built on in future eg area to west of S2.

     ii.          Landscape and street maintenance arrangements would be the responsibility of the developer in future. They had modelled how this would work and confirmed that waste collection vehicles could access the site. Details would be controlled through conditions such as Landscape Management Plan.

   iii.          Officers could take enforcement action if management was considered poor.

   iv.          Properties would have mechanical ventilation in future. Officers were also looking at how to future proof the development such as installing ground source heat pumps. These considerations were outside of this application.

    v.          Buildings complied with Building Regulations and fire regulations (eg internal egress routes).

   vi.          Shared spaces had green paving, but major access routes did not. On site management would control grass area maintenance be responsible for stopping people parking in grass/pavements and damaging them.

 vii.          The 2013 Environmental Impact Assessment did not need to be updated. Referred to paragraph 3.9 of the Officer’s report. There were no significant details in S1 or S2 that required a new Environmental Impact Assessment.

 

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

      i.          The single aspect of properties had been modelled and the Applicant would mitigate ventilation and overheating issues through building regulations. 2020 and 2050 climate change scenarios had been reviewed. The application passed TN59 scenarios as per Part O of Building Regulations.

     ii.          Not all apartments had been modelled in scenarios, but a selection to sample check across the development.

   iii.          Parametric modelling looked at all lighting issues to ensure appropriate glazing was in place in single aspect properties so there was suitable daylight in all rooms and they would not overheat. Each unit was assessed against the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the officer’s recommendation that boundary, fencing and tree cover should be appropriate and maintained in future.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the officer’s recommendation that if the permanent public right of way on the ridgeway was lost during construction, a temporary replacement alternative route should be put in place.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Following Councillors’ comments the Strategic Sites Delivery Manager proposed amendments to the officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Not to discharge Outline Condition 11 (soft landscaping) in outline planning permission.

     ii.          Addition of a condition so all reasonable ways would be considered to maintain access to the ridgeways during construction.

   iii.          Expand Condition 9 to ensure replacement trees would be maintained for 5 years as per any they would replace.

   iv.          Withhold partial discharge of Outline Condition 43 to enable review of cycle parking to ensure suitable storage stands were available.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the officer’s recommendation that the Applicant needed to submit details to certify the 80 litres use per day was complied with before occupation.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Flaubert took part in the debate but left the meeting (and did not return) before the Committee voted on recommendations.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to approve reserved matters application reference 21/04036/REM subject to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in Appendix 1 of this report with authority delegated to Officers to undertake appropriate minor amendments to any of those conditions and/or informatives prior to issue of the planning permission.

 

Additional Conditions:

      i.          Details of phased construction of the site.

     ii.          Developer to put in all reasonable access through the Ridgeway where possible.

   iii.          Amend Condition 9 to require replacement trees to be maintained for five years after planting.

   iv.          Applicant needed to submit details to certify the 80 litres use per day was complied with before occupation

 

Delegated authority for Officers to agree wording of conditions with the Chair and Vice Chair.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to approve the part discharge of the following outline planning conditions (planning application reference S/2036/13/VC) in so far as they relate to this reserved matters application site according to the recommendations for each condition set out in the table on P56 of the agenda pack.

 

Revised conditions:

      i.          Not to discharge outline Condition 11 – so boundary to wet woodland could be reviewed.

     ii.          Not to discharge outline Condition 43 so bike stands could be reviewed.