Agenda item

S/4191/19/FL - Orchard Park (Western Side Of Land Parcel COM4, Neal Drive)

Erection of new private rented residential block comprising a total of eighty studio one and two bedroom apartments (Resubmission of application S/0768/18/FL)

Decision:

Councillor Pippa Heylings proposed an amendment and addition as set out in 2 (a) and (b) below. This was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam and, upon a vote being conducted by roll call, the Committee approved both the amended Condition and additional Informative by eight votes to one with one abstention.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, H\awkins, Heylings, Wilson and Wright voted in favour. Councillor Roberts voted against. Councillor Richard Williams abstained.)

 

The Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application, subject to

 

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

 

a.     A 15-year clawback mechanism in relation to affordable housing

b.     Implementation and maintenance of a car club scheme

c.     Developer Contributions towards community facilities (but excluding the cycleway contribution sought by Cambridgeshire County Council)

 

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, subject to

 

(a)  Condition 5 being re-worded as follows

 

The pedestrian link on land within the Applicant’s ownership, between Neal Drive and Chieftain Way, as shown on the approved Site Plan OP/170/2 Rev 1 shall be constructed and made available for public use prior to first occupation of the approved development. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership, shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved plans and shall remain accessible to the general public at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership shall be maintained to a standard sufficient for public use as proposed.

 

(b)  An additional Informative that would satisfy the concerns raised by the landscape officer that the details submitted in relation to the soft and hard landscaping (as required by Condition 6) shall provide a high-quality landscape that overcomes the objections raised.

 

final wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

Minutes:

The presenting officer made a detailed presentation focussing on, among other things

 

·   Land ownership

·   Visibility splays

·   The pedestrian link

·   Proposed additional wording in Condition 5

·   Viability, and an alternative planning obligation

·   Reference to ‘Appeal A’ as summarised in the report

·   Landscaping

·   Travel plan

·   Car parking

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer expanded on the question of viability. Although this was a long-term investment, there remained a £2.8 million deficit requiring the Committee to identify its priorities. Cambridgeshire County Council was forward funding a cycleway along Histon Road. However, the developer was not able to contribute both to that project and to community facilities. The Senior Planning Lawyer therefore had drafted two alternative planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Members noted that, were they to opt for a financial contribution to community facilities instead of the cycleway, then Cambridgeshire County Council as Local Highways Authority would object to the application.

 

Paul Watson (applicant’s agent), Councillor Chan (Orchard P\ark Community Council), and Councillor Martin Cahn (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

 

Councillor Pippa Heylings (a local Member) proposed an amendment and addition as set out in 2 (a) and (b) of the Committee decision below. This was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam and, upon a vote being conducted by roll call, the Committee approved both the amended Condition and additional Informative by eight votes to one with one abstention.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, H\awkins, Heylings, Wilson and Wright voted in favour. Councillor Roberts voted against. Councillor Richard Williams abstained.)

 

During the ensuing debate, Members focussed on the following

 

·   Density

·   Viability

·   The absence of affordable housing

·   Orientation of the building

·   Design

·   Impact on the existing community and implications for future community cohesion

·   Housing mix

·   Car parking, including in the context of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s aspiration of meeting its carbon zero target

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer emphasised the importance of considering the current application on its merits, and not being influenced by other factors, including the indication that the appeal against refusal of a previous application could be withdrawn.

 

By eight votes to two (with Councillors Deborah Roberts and Richard Williams voting against), the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application, subject to

 

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

 

a.     A 15-year clawback mechanism in relation to affordable housing

b.     Implementation and maintenance of a car club scheme

c.     Developer Contributions towards community facilities (but excluding the cycleway contribution sought by Cambridgeshire County Council)

 

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, subject to

 

(a)  Condition 5 being re-worded as follows

 

The pedestrian link on land within the Applicant’s ownership, between Neal Drive and Chieftain Way, as shown on the approved Site Plan OP/170/2 Rev 1 shall be constructed and made available for public use prior to first occupation of the approved development. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership, shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved plans and shall remain accessible to the general public at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership shall be maintained to a standard sufficient for public use as proposed.

 

(b)  An additional Informative that would satisfy the concerns raised by the landscape officer that the details submitted in relation to the soft and hard landscaping (as required by Condition 6) shall provide a high-quality landscape that overcomes the objections raised.

 

final wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

Supporting documents: