Agenda item

The application sought reserved matters approval for the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of 136 residential units with associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping. The application included details for approval required by conditions on the outline consent, seeking to part discharge those conditions in relation to this parcel only.

 

The Planning Consultant for Strategic Sites Team, highlighted the following changes that were not on the Amendment Sheet:

      i.         Discharge of condition 20 in relation to this parcel only.

    ii.         Condition 30 would not be discharged in relation to RM44.

 

The Planning Consultant for Strategic Sites Team then updated their report by referring to the amendments contained within the Amendment Sheet as follows:

6.1    Active Travel England – No objection

6.2    Following clarifications, Active Travel England have updated their response to one of ‘no objection’.

6.52  Waste Team, Greater Cambridge Shared Waste – No objection, following clarification regarding bin collection points, collection for Block 2C and reversing of collection vehicles.

15.8 Active Travel England was advised of this background on the matter and have no objection regarding the application.

15.10 The context of the hedgerow within neighbouring property has been relayed to Active Travel England and on this basis, they have no objection to the proposal.

17.1  The outline planning permissions secured a requirement that all homes would need to meet (or exceed) Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). All homes within this phase would meet or exceed the NDSS, except for one private unit within block 2M. This is a 3-storey terraced house which would accommodate 3 bedrooms and 5 persons, proposed with a total gross internal area (GIA) of 93 square metres.

17.2  The standard minimum GIA for this type and size of dwelling would be 99 square metres, a difference of 6 square metres and 6% of the minimum NDSS requirement. Other units within this same block will significantly exceed the spatial standards. On balance, o Officers are of the view that the development would provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants in accordance with Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).

17.6  A total of 22 units (16% of the total dwellings) within Blocks 2E, 2G, 2H and 2M would have approximately 15 metres back-to-back distance and would therefore be below the recommended distance. Notwithstanding the proximity of the units, the layout of the parcels and Blocks have been carefully designed and windows have been arranged so that those serving rear habitable rooms do not face windows at habitable rooms directly on neighbouring units. This allows that good street design is promoted and is in line with the approved Design Code. All proposed three storey properties exceed the minimum distances.

18.8  Whilst we have not had any formally comments from the Following clarifications by the applicant team, the Councils Waste team have confirmed the refuse plan is, officers consider the proposals to be acceptable and therefore Condition 64 can be partially discharged in relation to RMA4.

24 Planning Balance Conclusion

24.3  Whilst one dwelling would fall short of the minimum GIA and for blocks would not meet the minimum back-to-back distances required by the Design Code, o Officers are of the view that the proposed scheme would provide a high-quality living environment for future occupants.

24.5  For the reasons set out in this report, on balance the proposals are supported by Officers and the recommendation is to approve the application subject to conditions.

 

Amendments To Conditions:

 

Inclusion of time limit condition:

“The commencement of development of this reserved matters area pursuant to the outline planning permission shall begin no later than the expiration of two years from the date of this reserved matters approval.

 

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) and to prevent accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.”

 

David Fletcher of Bellway Latimer LLP (applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Planning Consultant for Strategic Sites Team, and the Strategic Sites Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         It had been agreed in principle that the City Council would be responsible for the management of the large principal areas of open spaces and drainage, site wide - even for those sites which fell within South Cambridgeshire District’s administrative boundary. 

    ii.         Adopted highways would be the responsibility of the County Council.

   iii.         A management company would be responsible for the private drives and small areas of open spaces; the charge for the management company would be minimal.

  iv.         There had been a site wide EV charging strategy which had been approved; the details of the infrastructure were missing from the application but in terms of location, all units would be served with charging points.  

    v.         The reason that application had been brought forward to Committee was that the application was for reserved matters for 100 or more residential units.

  vi.         The Design Code required that for two storey dwellings there should be a minimum of 18 metres back-to-back distances between the windows of rear habitable rooms.

 vii.         There would be segregated cycle and pedestrian routes on site.

viii.         There would be space for cycling parking in the garages and designated cycle parking for the flats with designated visitor cycle spaces.

  ix.         NDSS (referred to the nationally described space standard) - all units met with the minimum gross internal floor area of new dwellings.

    x.         The delivery of affordable housing would be 39.71% for this parcel.

  xi.         Noted the request for an addition to the informative regarding letter boxes in as much that they should be accessible from the street. However, the Design Code stated that ‘all letter boxes should be located in an appropriate secure location to ensure they are accessible and useable by all users, the height of letter boxes should be above 0.7meters’. Therefore, the suggested addition was not required.

 xii.         Recommend that any changes to windows as part of the application were covered under permitted development. For new openings, planning permission would need to be sought but if the changes related only to the frame and type of window this would not be necessary.

xiii.         Confirmed that the Coach Houses replaced 5% of the provision of M4(2) compliant units.  

xiv.         There was nothing in the submission that could guarantee green roofs being retrofitted. Originally green roofs had been ruled out due to the proximity of the airport.

xv.         Noted the suggestion it was possible for streetlights to have EV charging points in them but was not aware of the infrastructure of the EV points. However, was sure the developer would note the comment.

xvi.         Had recommended under reserved matters, more detail on street lighting on privately owned highways was required.

xvii.         Noted the request that street lighting on privately owned highways should be allocated a number, making them easily identifiable.

xviii.         Noted the request for a declaration of who the management company were, who for and which areas.

xix.         The height of the rear wall to the custom-built houses had been reduced to 1.5m including a 30cm ‘hit and miss’ brick work in line with requirements of the Designing out of Crime officer and had now been deemed acceptable.

xx.         Condition 61 (Artificial Lighting Design Scheme) was not recommended for approval as there was not enough information for this to be fully discharged in relation to RMA 4 (second phase of residential development); a further condition regarding artificial lighting had been recommended. 

xxi.         There were no waste bins specified on the drawings but there were benches in the neighbourhood park and along the ‘green finger’. The Public and Open Spaces Team and Landscape Officer had seen the street furniture specification and agreed this as acceptable.

xxii.         Noted the comment that benches should be placed in the shade where possible. 

xxiii.         There were no specific delivery points for this application, but the comment would be noted when developing the wider area.

xxiv.         Noted the comment that dark timber cladding attracted heat. With summers becoming hotter each year, alternative materials should be considered. The orientation of the finishes could also be considered such as those materials only used on north facing properties only. 

xxv.         There was a specific condition regarding overheating which was recommended for discharge.

xxvi.         A large amount of work had been undertaken between Officers, developers, and the Urban Design Team regarding the custom-built houses to understand what could be customised and how and where in the process; there was a condition on this subject matter.

xxvii.         Blocks 2E, 2G, 2H and 2M had approximately 15 metres back-to-back distance, the blank walls in these properties would be as part of ‘non-habitable rooms’. New windows would require planning permission to avoid any issue of overlooking but technically there was no reason why opaque windows could not be installed, when they were not serving habitable rooms.

xxviii.         The detail for bus stops had been a requirement of the outline planning permission. The information had already been submitted for discharge. The Highways Authority would have been consulted regarding the detail of locations. The information would be circulated to the Committee. 

xxix.         There were ongoing discussions regarding the connectivity of the site covering a range of issues including the junction on Coldham’s Lane, the Sainsbury’s roundabout.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (11 votes to 1) to approve planning permission of reserved matters application reference 23/03347/REM, subject to:

    i.           the conditions and informatives set in the Officer’s report and the updated condition on the Amendment Sheet (condition 1); and

  ii.           with 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.

 

Resolved unanimously to approve planning permission for reserved matters application reference 23/03347/REM, viz:

      i.         Approve / refuse partial discharge of the following outline planning conditions (including the two updates in the Officer’s presentation) associated to reference 18/0481/OUT as varied by planning permission reference 22/01967/S73 in relation to the RMA4 reserved matters application according to the recommendations for each condition set out in the table below:

 

Condition Submitted	Recommendation
Condition 10 – Design Code Statement	Approve
Condition 11 – Housing Mix	Approve
Condition 12 - Internal Residential Space Standards	Approve
Condition 13 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings	Approve
Condition 14 – Wheelchair User Dwellings	Approve
Condition 17 – Sustainability Statement	Approve
Condition 18 – Sustainability - Water Efficiency	Approve
Condition 19 – Sustainability - Energy Statement	Approve
Condition 20 – Over Heating Analyse	Approve
Condition 24 – Drainage: Surface Water Strategy	Approve
Condition 26 – Drainage: Foul Water Drainage Details	Approve
Condition 29 – Biodiversity: Biodiversity Survey and Assessment	Approve
Condition 30 – Wildlife Hazard Management Plan	Approve Not approve
Condition 36 – Open Space Details	Approve
Condition 37 – Hard and Soft Landscape Details	Approve
Condition 38 – Tree Survey and Arboriculture Implications Assessment)	Approve
Condition 40 – Installation of Services: Details of Excavation Trenches	Approve
Condition 44 – Highways - Cycle Parking	Approve
Condition 45 – Highways - Car Parking	Approve
Condition 55 – Site Wide Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Point Provision and Infrastructure Scheme Strategy Delivery	Approve
Condition 59 – Noise Impact Assessment - Residential and Noise Sensitive Issues	Approve
Condition 61 – Artificial Lighting Design Scheme	Not approve
Condition 64 – Waste - Waste Storage Details	Approve