Issue - decisions

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a five storey building to accommodate community facilities, library, café, youth facilities, touchdown space for police and social services, medical centre 20 affordable housing units, and associated parking, amenity areas, refuse storage and landscaping.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Roberts, Chair of Trumpington Residents Association.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Trumpington Resident’s Association supported the design of the application in principle.

     ii.          Raised the following concerns:

·       Condition 15 (times of usage) – These were too restrictive for youth groups.

·       Condition 17b (noise control) - It was unrealistic to expect people to leave doors and windows closed in hot weather.

·       Walking, cycle and public transport links were required from day 1.

Mr Carter, Head of Strategic Housing at the City Council, representing the City Council as the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to public speakers’ comments the Principal Planner and Senior Environmental Health Officer made the following responses:

       i.          Conditions were imposed to balance the needs of different building users. These could be reviewed if required.

     ii.          The building had been designed to limit the impact of noise on residents and neighbours.

   iii.          A noise assessment had been undertaken, and a number of standard conditions were attached to mitigate noise impact.

   iv.          A ventilation statement produced by the applicants had been reviewed. Mechanical ventilation (not full air conditioning) was in place, so there should be no need for doors and windows to be opened in hot weather.

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

       i.          Expressed concern regarding the limited provision of on-site car parking and suggested that a lack of capacity may limit the opportunity for facilities within the building  to generate revenue if ‘customers’ were unable to access them.

     ii.          Transport links appeared to be focussed on new rather than existing Trumpington residents who wanted to access libraries and community centres etc.

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services, New Neighbourhoods Development Manager and the Principal Planner gave the following responses:

       i.          The site wide Master Plan approved with the outline permission limited the number of car parking spaces that could be made available in Clay Farm. There were 22 allocated for the community centre, 5 of which were for disabled people, and 12 were allocated to the medical centre for priority booking. There were a further 34 pay and display parking spaces in the nearby area. The site was also accessible by walking, bike, mobility scooter and public transport. Strategic walking and bicycle links were located nearby, as was a guided bus stop.

     ii.          A traffic regulation order covered the Clay Farm site to mitigate parking outside of authorised areas.

   iii.          BPHA (affordable housing provider) was marketing homes as car free, to attract residents without cars. Homes were aimed at Addenbrooke’s key workers who were expected to commute on public transport.

   iv.          The Southern Fringe Community Forum would continue to review travel plan arrangements for the site. The Forum were liaising with the County Council to ensure bus services operated in the evening. Stagecoach had agreed to do this in principle, a start date was still to be determined. City and County Council Officers would continue to review wider Trumpington transport issues.

    v.          The use of short term pump priming from the Clay Farm S106 is in place to provide additional bus services to the site, with the expectation that these routes would become permanent and  self-financing.

   vi.          The site had limited space. The number of car parking spaces had to be limited in order to fit maximum facilities on-site.

 vii.          There were sufficient storage facilities for residents’ bike and trailers. These were aimed at key workers, not people with children.

viii.          A mix of 1 and 2 bedroom housing units were available to accommodate key workers’ needs in accordance with balanced and mixed community’s requirements.

   ix.          The community centre had capacity for approximately 200 people. It would be marketed as a venue with sustainable transport links ie accessible via park & ride rather than by car. It was designed to host a variety of user groups and minimise the impact of noise on neighbours. The Southern Fringe Community Forum would represent users’ views and liaise with City Council Officers on whether the building was fit for purpose. The community centre management company will monitor the situation and resolve any queries that arose.

The Legal Advisor said that as the land owner, the City Council could set lease conditions to control building usage.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions (SCDC Councillors did not vote)) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.