Agenda item

Application for all matters reserved for Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping following the granting of outline approval ref: S/0670/17/OL Dated 19th November 2019 for up to 203 dwellings including affordable housing and land for community provision with access and associated works, open space and landscaping, following the demolition of existing buildings on site

The Committee approved, via affirmation, the inclusion of an informative for the applicant to review the drainage scheme after the completion of phase one of the development and prior to the commencement of the construction of phase two; officers were granted delegated authority to write the official wording in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

The Committee approved, via affirmation, the inclusion of a condition that required an investigation into the s106 agreement to assess the fallback strategy in the case of the management company failing to maintain the ponds. Officers were granted delegated authority to write the precise wording of the condition and also negotiate the terms of a fallback arrangement.

With the addition of the informative and condition, the Committee (excluding those Members who could not vote on the application) approved, by affirmation, the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, Dean Scrivener, presented the report and offered an update. The update was regarding an email which confirmed the discharge of some of the conditions of the OUT permission for the site: conditions 14, 17, 28, and 32.

The Committee was addressed by a number of public speakers. David Cottee, of Fulbourn Forum, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr Cottee was asked questions on concerns about drainage and his answers detailed the fact that he had seen waterlogging and minor flooding of the eastern end of the site and also informed the Committee that, in his view, it would be possible to resolve the issues with further drainage mitigation strategies. The pump in the east of the site was also mentioned; it was noted that the pump had been used at one stage but was not part of the proposals in the application.

Mark Gatehouse (drainage consultant) and Garry Goodwin spoke on behalf of the applicant. Members asked questions on drainage concerns and the issues of ownership of the pump on site. Answers detailed the proposed drainage scheme and stated that the pump was in the ownership of the NHS at the time.

The Committee was addressed by local Members, Councillors Graham Cone, John Williams and Dr Claire Daunton. Councillors Cone and Williams expressed support for the application overall but raised reservations over drainage. Councillor Daunton objected to the application as it stood and raised concerns over cycle and bin storage, outdoor space for affordable housing and general design; Members questioned Councillor Daunton and received answers on the aforementioned concerns.

In the debate, Members discussed the following topics:

•         The Village Design Guide- the Built Environment Team Leader and the Senior Planning Officer offered clarity and described how the site’s design was in keeping with the Village Design Guide

•         Waste- the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that condition 11 of the application dealt with the waste concerns and that condition 14 of the Outline permission had already been discharged

Drainage and the management of the ponds were extensively discussed. Drainage was addressed by the Senior Planning Officer and the drainage consultant from the Lead Local Flood Authority (Harry Pickford). The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that condition 19 of the Outline permission required a drainage management strategy be submitted prior to application; the Chair stated that the addition of a drainage condition would be inappropriate at the Reserve Matters stage but suggested that an informative could be added. The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that a fallback position, in the case of the management company failure to maintain the ponds, could not be found in the s106 agreement of the Outline permission; he advised the Committee that a condition could be added to ensure that s106 agreement had a fallback position. It was advised that the Committee grant delegated authority for officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

The Committee approved, via affirmation, the inclusion of an informative for the applicant to review the drainage scheme after the completion of phase one of the development and prior to the commencement of the construction of phase two; officers were granted delegated authority to write the official wording in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

The Committee approved, via affirmation, the inclusion of a condition that required an investigation into the s106 agreement to assess the fallback strategy in the case of the management company failing to maintain the ponds. Officers were granted delegated authority to write the precise wording of the condition and also negotiate the terms of a fallback arrangement.

With the addition of the informative and condition, the Committee (excluding those Members who could not vote on the application) approved, by affirmation, the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation in the report.