Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings, creation of access road from Station Road West, and construction of a residential development of 48 No. residential units together with associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, and refuse storage (Re-submission of 22/02571/FUL)

By 6 votes to none, with 2 abstentions, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, and the completion of a s106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that there was the addition of a condition to the recommendation that read:

“Prior to the installation of any electrical services, an electric vehicle charge point scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for electric vehicle charging point scheme; active charge point(s) for each house, and electric charging point scheme; active charge points for the communal flat parking. The active charge points should have a minimum power rating output of 3.5kW. All other communal flat spaces should have passive provision of the necessary infrastructure including capacity in the connection to the local electricity distribution network and electricity distribution board, as well as the provision of cabling to parking spaces for all remaining car parking spaces to facilitate and enable the future installation and activation of additional active electric vehicle charge points as required, and this should be demonstrated in the submitted detail.

The approved electric vehicle charge points shall be installed prior to first occupation of the relevant dwelling and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging more sustainable modes and forms of transport in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021) paragraphs 107, 112, 174 and 186, policy TI/3 Of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2021.”

Officers responded to a number of questions of clarity and:

• Confirmed that garages were considered to provide sufficient space.

• Informed Members that the ongoing appeal for 67 units on the site had not been concluded and thus did not provide a fallback position and was not a material consideration; if the appeal was successful and the application was approved the developers would be able to choose between the approved schemes.

• Confirmed that footpaths were secured by conditioning.

• Informed the Committee that the levels of affordable housing were linked to the cost of development, notably the decontamination costs.

• Detailed some of the changes between the scheme being decided upon and other schemes for the site that had previously been seen by the Committee.

Members commented on the single aspect flats in the apartment blocks and raised concerns over light and ventilation. Officers advised that there was no policy prohibiting single aspect flats and that Part O of the Building Regulations would ensure that dwellings would not be prone to overheating.

Members noted that a written submission from Whittlesford Parish Council had been received and circulated. The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Lorenzo Pandolfi, who responded to a number of questions from Members. In response to questions, the agent explained that the design for the single aspect flats included projected bay windows to increase light and ventilation, and informed the Committee that photovoltaics were not included in the proposal due to the constraints of the site and massing concerns, following discussion with officers, but stated that the developer was not ruling out installing solar panels in the future. Councillor Dr Richard Williams addressed the Committee as local Member and a representative of Whittlesford Parish Council and commented that the proposed scheme was an improvement on previous proposals but that were still a number of issues with the proposal and that he agreed with the comments of the Parish Council. The local Member commented on the commuted sum for affordable housing and stated that he understood that the developer was happy to contribute some of the funding to a local affordable housing charity, but that local policy meant that commuted sums for affordable housing had to go to the wider funding pool for affordable housing in new build developments in the District, thus funding from the development could not be given to the local charity. The local Member requested that, if possible, some of the sum be directed towards affordable housing initiatives in the village of Whittlesford. Members asked questions of clarity regarding the affordable housing contribution and the local Member informed the Committee that the decision on commuted sums was agreed in 2015, based on information provided by Housing Officers. Officers confirmed the information that the local Member provided was correct and stated that to override this decision, approval from Full Council would have to be sought. Officers advised that the Council’s Housing Team could explore options, alongside Whittlesford Parish Council, to see how s106 contributions from the development could be used locally and that it would be appropriate to include a local connection restriction into the s106 agreement to ensure that the funding was used in Whittlesford for local affordable housing if possible within a defined time frame, with any funds not used cascading back to the wider District affordable housing fund. The local Member commented that he would be happy with the suggestion from officers.

In the debate, concerns were raised over the single aspect flats but that the explanation from officers as to why this was not a material consideration was satisfactory. Further concerns were raised over design, lack of amenity space and density but it was noted that it was an improvement on previous proposals. Officers advised that density of the site was appropriate and a significantly smaller number of dwellings would be not be an efficient use of the land, stating that whilst the proposal was not fully policy compliant, there was good justification for the proposed density. It was noted that the brownfield nature of the site, especially with the poor conditions of the site and contamination present, was a consideration that had weight in the recommendation of approval. Members discussed affordable housing and expressed reservations, but stated that the proposal from officers to include a local connection restriction in the s106 agreement was a positive mitigation and that they would like to see it implemented.

By 6 votes (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford and Eileen Wilson) to none, with 2 abstentions (Councillors Bill Handley and Dr Tumi Hawkins), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, and the completion of a s106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams rejoined the Committee