Issue - meetings

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Approval for the reserved matters, (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 279 dwellings and associated works, (permission in outline granted under 16/00378/1).

RESOLVED:

(1)     That application 19/00386/RM  be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

•        The inclusion of an electric vehicle charging condition

•        Exploration of access through to the Ivy Farm phase 2 (Kier scheme) behind the school site

•        Re design of the 3 storey block at the McDonalds end of the site

•        Resolution of highway concerns regarding the layout

(2)     That, in the event that the applicant decline the invitation to revisit the design of the three storey block or would nor extend the time limit in order for the above issues to be explored, prior to reporting back to the Committee at the earliest available opportunity, officers be authorised to refuse planning permission, under delegated authority.

There was a 5 minute comfort break at 22:17.

Audio recording – Session 2 – 0.00 secs

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendments to the report were required:

•        Paragraph 3.2 – Delete “The Parish Council understand the Natural England will also oppose this development along with the Conservators”

•        Paragraph 4.3.16 – the first sentence should read: “Other than the traditional two storey houses, this scheme specifies three 3 storey apartment block at the western end of the site near the McDonalds restaurant.”

•        Paragraph 4.4.1 - Insert “as well as a site for a” before ‘new first school’ in first sentence.

The Principal Planning Officer (East Team) presented the report in respect of

application 19/00386/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of

photographs and plans.

Mr Wallace Young, DCa architects, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to

address the Committee in support of application19/00386/RM as follows:

•        This development provided 98 affordable homes and 108 private homes for the local area;

•        There was a detailed landscape scheme that included open spaces and pedestrian routes for dog walking and cycling;

•        Access points to the school site had been considered.

The following Members asked questions of Mr Young’s presentation:

•        Councillor David Levett;

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Ruth Brown;

•        Councillor Kay Tart.

In response to questions, Mr Young advised:

•        At present, there was not a registered social housing landlord.

•        Most of the houses were set back from the railway line.

•        Fencing was to be put in place in order to prevent access to the balancing ponds and railway line.

•        Access to other developments was not confirmed.

•        Foul water details had been submitted with the application;

•        There would not be access directly into the next development site.

.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

•        A condition regarding the foul water drainage had been imposed on the outline permission that a foul water scheme was to be submitted, which had not yet been discharged;

•        The scheme could only proceed with the agreement of Anglian Water.

The following Members took part in the debate:

•        Councillor Mike Rice;

•        Councillor David Levett;

•        Councillor Ruth Brown;

•        Councillor Terry Tyler;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Tony Hunter.

Members raised the following points during the debate:

•        The report contained no detail about electric vehicle charging points;

•        The design of the large building was not in keeping with the local area, particularly as they would form the gateway to Royston and opposite the Heath;

•        There was concern that the social housing would not be spread throughout the development, but be concentrated in one area;

•        There was no access to the Kier Home Development for pedestrians and cycles;

•        Upkeep and maintenance of the play area was to be done by someone other than NHDC;

•        The proposed building was an eye sore;

•        The report did not contain any details about the prospect of the speed limit being decreased.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35