PLANNING COMMITTEE 8th February 2012 Application Number

11/0902/REM Agenda Item

Date Received 29th July 2011 Officer Mr Tony Collins

Target Date 28th October 2011 Ward Romsey Site 171 - 211 Cromwell Road Cambridge

Cambridgeshire CB1 3BA Proposal Reserved Matters application pursuant to planning

permission 08/0500/OUT for redevelopment comprising 124 residential units (Class C3) with car parking and landscaping.

Applicant Mr Ian Davies Weston Group Business Centre Parsonage Road Takeley Essex CM22 6PU

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The site, covering 1.2ha, lies on the west side of Cromwell

Road. It is a broadly rectangular plot with a small projection to the north-east on the street frontage.

1.2 The land was previously used by BT as an engineering

workshop. The buildings, concrete hardstanding and tarmac which previously covered the site have now been removed. The site has two access points, one at the extreme south-east corner, and one from the access driveway of the site to the north. The latter is the main access point used.

1.3 On the opposite side of Cromwell Road, facing the site, are two-

storey brick houses from the mid-twentieth century, arranged in short terraced blocks, with small front gardens. To the north of the site is Green’s Fitness Centre. The centre, which lies close to the common boundary with the application site, is a substantial 70m x 30m building, faced in metal profile sheeting with some glazing, which rises to about 10m above ground at the ridge of its pitched roof.

1.4 On the west side, the site borders Network Rail land. Between

the common boundary and the main London-King’s Lynn

railway line are several sidings, and a very large train maintenance building. This building extends both to the north and the south of the application site, and rises about 12m from track level. The rail tracks are approximately 3m above the application site ground level; a concrete-faced embankment outside the site boundary separates the two levels.

1.5 To the south of the site is the Hampton Gardens residential

development constructed recently on the site of the former Tyco factory. The development is in two principal blocks, varying in height from two storeys to five. The northeast corner of the development, adjoining the application site on the Cromwell Road frontage, is an area of open space.

1.6 The application site forms the northern half of site 5.03 in the

Proposals Schedule of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), which is allocated for housing. (The southern half of site 5.03, formerly occupied by the Tyco factory and the Exhausts Unlimited workshop, has already been redeveloped for residential use). The site also falls within the area of the Cromwell Road Development Brief (2001).

1.7 The site is not within any conservation area, and falls outside

the Controlled Parking Zone. A designated on-road cycle route passes along the whole frontage of the site.

1.8 There are mature trees, predominantly birches, in a line along

the street frontage of the site, and a smaller number at the rear of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This is a reserved matters application pursuant to the outline

permission 08/0500/OUT which was granted in November 2008, following a resolution by Planning Committee in July 2008. At the time of the outline application, illustrative site layout drawings were included. Since that time, further discussions have taken place with officers, and an alternative layout has emerged. This layout was presented to Design and Conservation Panel in April 2011. Further changes have been made to the design in response to the comments of Panel in April and to advice from officers in City Development Management, the Joint Urban Design Team, the Principal Landscape Officer’s team and the Waste Strategy Manager.

2.2 The proposed scheme, as revised, is based round a central

avenue running broadly east-west from a site access point midway along the Cromwell Road frontage of the site to meet a secondary ‘street’ running north-south close to the western boundary. The avenue would include both vehicular and pedestrian circulation space, and surface car parking between two rows of substantial trees. Nine buildings containing residential accommodation (Blocks A, B, C, D1, D2, E, F, G and H) would be sited around this central feature, with three principal spaces towards the southern side of the site. The blocks, streets and spaces are detailed below.

2.3 Block A would sit to the south of the avenue, adjacent to the

Cromwell Road frontage. The footprint would measure 36m x 10m, The eastern half of the building would be of three storeys, with a flat roof, and a parapet height at 9.2m above ground level, while the western half would have an additional storey, rising to 12m above ground. The building would be served mainly by windows on the north and south elevations, and would feature two stairwells, semicircular in plan, projecting from the north elevation. The building would contain two 1-bed and thirteen 2-bed units, all of which would be market units. 14 cycle parking spaces would be provided in two stores within the ground floor envelope. Waste storage would be provided in a further store in a similar position. The 14 car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located on both sides of the avenue, immediately to the north of the block.

2.4 Block B would be sited half-way along the southern edge of the

site, in line with Block F, and at the opposite end of the central space. The footprint would measure 20m x 17m, and the building, with four storeys, would have a flat roof, with a parapet height at 11.7m above ground level. The building would be served mainly by windows on the north and south elevations, and would feature balconies on the east and west elevations. The building would contain seven one-bed and eight 2-bed units, all of which would be market units. Cycle parking and waste bin storage would be provided in dedicated spaces within the ground floor envelope, on the north side The car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located to the west of the block in echelon layout alongside the roadway between this block and Block D.

2.5 Block C would sit to the south of the avenue, at its western end. The footprint would measure 10m x 36m. The building, would have six storeys in its eastern half and five in the western half, with flat roofs. The parapet heights would be at 17m above ground on the eastern half, and 15m above ground on the western half. The form of the building would resemble that of Block A, with the same projecting stairwells. The building would contain two 1-bed and twenty 2-bed units, all of which would be market units. 14 cycle parking spaces would be provided in stores within the ground floor of the building, and a further four spaces outside. Waste storage would be provided in two indoor stores, one alongside each of the two entrance hallways. The 19 car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located in the central avenue, to the north of the block. Two would be suitable for disabled users.

2.6 Block D1 would fill the extreme south-west corner of the site. It

would have a section facing east across the south-western courtyard; then it would turn along the southern boundary of the site, and then turn again up the western boundary adjacent to the railway. The east elevation towards the open space would be16m long, the southern elevation towards the Hampden Gardens site 32m long, and the western elevation towards the railway 50m long, and the building would have a flat roof. The general parapet height would be 12m above ground level, and the building would be 6.8m deep. The western boundary section of the building would address the mews street, with windows on the western boundary serving only bathrooms, and landings.

2.7 Block D2 would form a continuation of D1, extending along the

northern part of the western boundary of the site, right up to the north-west corner. The footprint would measure 25m x 6.8m, and the building would have a flat roof and parapet at the same height as Block D1.

2.8 With the exception of two shared-ownership flats in the extreme

southeast corner, the ground floor of the two D blocks would be used for parking and waste storage. 25 car parking spaces would be provided all along the west side of the mews street; some would be enclosed and others open. Cycle and bin storage space would be provided behind these car park spaces, reached by three entrance hallways along this frontage. There would also be a ten-space motorcycle store within the ground floor, at the southwest corner. The upper floors of the two D

blocks would contain a further 27 units, two of which would be shared ownership, four market units, and the remainder social rented.

2.9 Block E would be one of two separate blocks on the northern

edge of the site. It would stand 16m to the east of the northern part of Block D2, and 2m from the common boundary with the Green’s Health Centre site to the north. The footprint would measure 23m x 15m, and the building would have five storeys, the uppermost set back by 4m on the east and west sides, and 3.5m on the south side. The balustrade height above the fourth storey would be 12.4m above ground and the flat roof of the fifth storey at 14.6m above ground. North-facing windows in this block would be to stairwells and bedrooms, and there would be no north-facing single-aspect dwellings. The building would contain two 1-bed, seven 2-bed, and three 3-bed units. 26 cycle parking spaces would be provided in two stores, one attached to the north side of the building, the other within the ground-floor footprint. Waste storage would also be provided in an internal store. The car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located in undercroft spaces on the ground floor of the block, on the east side of the mews street or at the north end of the parking court between Blocks E and F.

2.10 Block F similarly would be 2m from the northern boundary. At its

closest, it would be 6m to the east of Block E. The footprint and height would be the same as Block E. The building would contain eight 1-bed and six 2-bed units, with cycle and bin storage arranged very similarly to Block E. The car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located in undercroft spaces on the ground floor of the block or on the north side of the avenue in front of the block.

2.11 Block G would be an L-shaped block, on the north side of the

avenue at the Cromwell Road end. The footprint would measure 20m along Cromwell Road, and 25m along the avenue. The section facing the avenue would have four storeys, with a parapet height at 11.8m above ground, but it would step down at the Cromwell Road end, so that the section facing the road (with only three storeys) would have the parapet at 9.6m above ground level. The building would contain thirteen 2-bed units. 28 cycle parking spaces would be provided in a separate store to the north-west of the building. The car parking spaces for the units in this block would be located in undercroft spaces on the

ground floor of the block, at the north end of the parking court between Blocks F and G, or on the north side of the avenue in front of the block.

2.12 Block H would be a terrace of five 4-bedroom town houses,

extending along the northernmost part of the Cromwell Road frontage. The footprint would measure 26m by 9m, and the three-storey building would have a flat roof with a parapet at 9.6 m above ground level. Each of these houses would have a rear garden measuring approximately 10m x 5m, and incorporating waste and cycle storage space. Four of the gardens would be accessed by a ginnel running through the centre of the terrace, the fifth from the northern access point. Ten car parking spaces, two for each house, would be provided at the north-eastern corner of the site. Eight would be accessed from the northern access point, off the entrance to Greens, and the remaining two directly from Cromwell Road.

2.13 In addition to the central avenue, the development would

feature three principal spaces, an open, partly lawned, area, measuring 26m x 36m in the south-east corner, adjacent to the Hampden Gardens open space, a smaller courtyard (20m x 22m) between Block B and Block D1, which would have a small play area surrounded by hedges, seats and trees, and the paved space between Blocks A and C (13m x 26m), which would form part of the vehicle route through the site, but would be a shared space, with a water feature, and a more formal quality to the planting.

2.14 The majority of the existing birch trees along the frontage would

be retained. A landscape masterplan for the whole site shows 51 new trees, which would be inserted at the semi-mature stage, mostly along the central avenue, and on the east side of the mews street.

2.15 The application is accompanied by the following supporting

information:

1. Contextual analysis

2. Design and Access Statement

3. Sustainability Statement

4. Sustainability Checklist

5. Affordable Housing Statement

6. Site Waste Management Plan

7. Drainage and Utilities Statement

8. Open Space Assessment

9. Planning Statement 3.0 SITE HISTORY

Reference Description Outcome 79/0868 Fuel tank and screen wall Approved with

conditions 80/0677 Three flues Approved with

conditions 80/0927 Extension Approved with

conditions 85/0531 Outline application for

warehouse with ancillary offices and car parking

Approved with conditions

85/0564 Installation of safe box Approved with conditions

85/1205 Reserved matters submission for warehouse with ancillary offices and car parking

Approved with conditions

87/0963 Additional car parking Refused 88/1033 Vehicle wash enclosure Approved with

conditions 89/0028 Two temporary buildings- Approved with

conditions 89/0205 Cycle shelter Approved with

conditions 89/1127 Two temporary training rooms Approved with

conditions 91/1054 Satellite dish Approved with

conditions 95/4480 Signage Approved with

conditions 97/0101 Fence Approved with

conditions 970282 Change of use from B8 to B1(a)

and B1(c) with ancillary offices Withdrawn

03/0050 Certificate of existing use for use as motor vehicle workshop

Withdrawn

04/0202 Certificate of existing use for use as motor vehicle workshop

Withdrawn

08/0500 Outline permission for 140 residential units

Approved with conditions

The decision notice for the outline permission 08/0500/OUT is attached to this report as Appendix A.

4.0 PUBLICITY 4.1 Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes DC Forum (meeting of 28th September 2011): Yes

The minutes of the DC Forum are attached to this report as Appendix B

5.0 POLICY Central Government Advice 5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005): Paragraphs 7 and 8 state that national policies and regional and local development plans (regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks) provide the framework for planning for sustainable development and for development to be managed effectively. This plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006): Sets out to

deliver housing which is: of high quality and is well designed; that provides a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price; supports a wide variety of households in all areas; sufficient in quantity taking into account need and demand and which improves choice; sustainable in terms of location and which offers a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, services and infrastructure; efficient and effective in the use of land, including

the re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate. The statement promotes housing policies that are based on Strategic Housing Market Assessments that should inform the affordable housing % target, including the size and type of affordable housing required, and the likely profile of household types requiring market housing, including families with children, single persons and couples. The guidance states that LPA’s may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range. 30 dwellings per hectare is set out as an indicative minimum. Paragraph 50 states that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a positive approach to renewable energy and sustainable development.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing has been reissued with the following changes: the definition of previously developed land now excludes private residential gardens to prevent developers putting new houses on the brownfield sites and the specified minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare on new housing developments has been removed. The changes are to reduce overcrowding, retain residential green areas and put planning permission powers back into the hands of local authorities. (June 2010)

5.3 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001): This guidance seeks three main objectives: to promote more sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services, by public transport, walking and cycling, and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Paragraph 28 advises that new development should help to create places that connect with each other in a sustainable manner and provide the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

5.4 Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004):

Provides policy advice to promote and encourage the development of renewable energy sources. Local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources, their differing characteristics, location requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

5.5 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004): States that ‘any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use’. It highlights the fact that the planning system has a key role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution. Appendix A sets out those matters which may be material in taking decisions on individual planning applications including the environmental benefits of reducing the need for travel and the existence of Air Quality Management Areas.

5.6 Planning Policy Guidance 24 - Planning and Noise (1994):

States at paragraph 12, that planning authorities should consider carefully whether new noise-sensitive development would be incompatible with existing activities. At paragraph 13, a number of mitigation measures are suggested which could be introduced to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise.

5.7 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

(2006): States that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk. It states that development in areas of flood risk should only be permitted when there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk and benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding.

5.8 Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions in Planning

Permissions: Advises that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Development Plan Policy

5.9 East of England Plan 2008

SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development H1: Regional Housing Provision 2001to 2021 H2: Affordable Housing T1: Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes

T2: Changing Travel Behaviour T9: Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport T14 Parking ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment ENG1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance WM6: Waste Management in Development

5.10 Cambridge Local Plan 2006

3/1 Sustainable development 3/4 Responding to context 3/7 Creating successful places 3/11 The design of external spaces 3/12 The design of new buildings 3/13 Tall buildings and the skyline 4/4 Trees 4/13 Pollution and amenity 5/1 Housing provision 5/5 Meeting housing needs 5/10 Dwelling mix 8/2 Transport impact 8/6 Cycle parking 8/9 Commercial vehicles and servicing 8/10 Off-street car parking 8/16 Renewable energy in major new developments

5.11 Supplementary Planning Documents

Cambridge City Council (May 2007) – Sustainable Design and Construction: Sets out essential and recommended design considerations of relevance to sustainable design and construction. Applicants for major developments are required to submit a sustainability checklist along with a corresponding sustainability statement that should set out information indicated in the checklist. Essential design considerations relate directly to specific policies in the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. Recommended considerations are ones that the council would like to see in major developments. Essential design considerations are urban design, transport, movement and accessibility, sustainable drainage (urban extensions), energy, recycling and waste facilities, biodiversity and pollution. Recommended design considerations are climate change adaptation, water, materials and construction waste and historic environment.

Cambridge City Council (January 2008) - Affordable

Housing: Gives advice on what is involved in providing affordable housing in Cambridge. Its objectives are to facilitate the delivery of affordable housing to meet housing needs and to assist the creation and maintenance of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

Cambridge City Council (January 2010) - Public Art: This SPD aims to guide the City Council in creating and providing public art in Cambridge by setting out clear objectives on public art, a clarification of policies, and the means of implementation. It covers public art delivered through the planning process, principally Section 106 Agreements (S106), the commissioning of public art using the S106 Public Art Initiative, and outlines public art policy guidance.

5.12 Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance Draft National Planning Policy Framework (July 2011)

The National Planning Policy Framework (Draft NPPF) sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England. These policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations.

The Draft NPPF incorporates core land use planning principles that should underpin development management, including:

1. planning should be genuinely plan-led

2. planning should proactively drive and support the development and the default answer to development

proposals should be “yes”, except where this would

compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in the Draft NPPF

3. planning decisions for future use of land should take account of its environmental quality or potential quality regardless of its previous or existing use

4. planning decisions should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest use of public transport, walking

and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable

5. planning decisions should take account of and support local strategies to improve health and wellbeing for all

6. planning decisions should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

The Draft NPPF states that the primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development.

Written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011)

Includes the following statement:

When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant and consistent with their statutory obligations they should therefore, amongst other issues: (i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession; (ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing; (iii) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.

City Wide Guidance Cambridge Walking and Cycling Strategy (2002) – A walking and cycling strategy for Cambridge. Protection and Funding of Routes for the Future Expansion of the City Cycle Network (2004) – Guidance on how development can help achieve the implementation of the cycle network. Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - in November 2010 the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was adopted by the City Council as a material consideration in planning decisions. The SFRA is primarily a tool for planning authorities to identify and evaluate the extent and nature of flood risk in their area and its implications for land use planning.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) – Study assessing the risk of flooding in Cambridge. Cambridge and Milton Surface Water Management Plan (2011) – A SWMP outlines the preferred long term strategy for the management of surface water. Alongside the SFRA they are the starting point for local flood risk management. Cambridge City Council (2011) - Open Space and Recreation Strategy: Gives guidance on the provision of open space and recreation facilities through development. Cambridge City Council Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation (2010) Sets out how all residential developments should make provision for public open space, if not on site then by commuted payments. It incorporates elements from the Planning Obligations Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2010) and the Open Space and Recreation Strategy (2006). Cambridgeshire Design Guide For Streets and Public Realm (2007): The purpose of the Design Guide is to set out the key principles and aspirations that should underpin the detailed discussions about the design of streets and public spaces that will be taking place on a site-by-site basis.

Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments (2010) – Gives guidance on the nature and layout of cycle parking, and other security measures, to be provided as a consequence of new residential development.

Area Guidelines

Cromwell Road Development Brief (2001) – Development Brief for former industrial land on the west side of Cromwell Road.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Cambridgeshire County Council (Engineering) 6.1 Highway authority does not adopt accessways serving flatted

development and so will not seek adoption of the routes within this development. This should be brought to the attention of the applicant. Clear plan of parking space allocation required. Manoeuvring diagrams for cars and service vehicles required. Dimensions of car and cycle parking spaces required

6.2 Conditions sought regarding unbound material, gates, layout of

the vehicle crossover, overhanging of the highway, surface water runoff, layout and maintenance of the manoeuvring space and the access, and a traffic management plan. Informatives also sought.

Head of Environmental Services

6.3 Demolition: difficulties have arisen regarding the conditions

attached to the outline proposal; conditions remain undischarged.

6.4 Construction: Conditions regarding site lighting, contractors’

arrangements, working hours, noise, vibration, dust, mud, concrete crushers and piling should be imposed on any reserved matters approval.

6.5 Noise: Noise from the railway requires an insulation scheme. 6.6 Waste: Scheme does not meet Council requirements.

6.7 Contaminated land: Condition 19 on the outline not yet discharged. This needs to be attached to any reserved matters permission.

Joint Urban Design Team Initial advice

Layout, movement and access:

6.8 Layout responds successfully to many of the constraints and

opportunities. Strong rectilinear street pattern. Tree-lined avenue will provide a strong focus and help integrate the development into the wider neighbourhood and avoid it becoming inward-looking and disconnected from its surroundings. Scheme creates variety in scale and character of spaces.

6.9 Simple legible route around the site. However, tracking plan for

waste vehicles is unclear. Clearly defined and well-overlooked public footpaths.

6.10 Three-storey houses provide an appropriate level of continuous

frontage and enclosure to the street, and are at a distance that will minimise negative impacts on the amenity of existing residents of Cromwell Road. Five-storey pavilion buildings separated by small undercroft parking courts on northern edge have been brought 7m back from the boundary edge and the apartments have been designed to avoid any north facing single aspect flats. No single aspect north facing apartments are proposed.

6.11 Primary open space provides an attractive tree lined frontage to

Cromwell Road linking the development into the adjoining Hampden Gardens development. Space in south west corner of limited amenity value.

Scale and Massing

6.12 Along the frontage three-storey buildings are appropriate.

Blocks D1 and D2 provide an appropriate level of screening adjacent to large engine shed and are of an appropriate mass and scale. Blocks E and F have been slimmed down and are of an appropriate scale and massing. Blocks A and C have a

relatively small footprint. This is less oppressive and more appropriately scaled than Hampden Gardens or Winstanley Court. Sixth floor of block C has been orientated towards the southern end of the block in response D & C Panel. Sixth storey provides an increase in height to act as a focus to the development.

6.13 High density has a number of implications for bins, cycles and

car parking Reducing the number of storeys on block A and block C could help to address some of these concerns, but development of up to 6 storeys was deemed appropriate in the outline consent.

Active frontage and security

6.14 Generally good. Blocks A and C have been designed to provide

front door access on either side of the building, thereby increasing ground level activity. These units provide overlooking onto the street and open space but also preserve the privacy of residents by providing planting and a low wall as a threshold.

6.15 Increased overlooking of undercroft parking should be provided

by incorporating windows on the west elevation of block G. Gated access to secure access to the back of plot 107 within block G needs to be provided. Parking spaces at the far northern end of block H would benefit from some windows on the end elevation.

Elevations and Materials

6.16 Well-balanced facades. Well proportioned windows and bays.

Strong vertical emphasis. Mix of materials provides a degree of unity with adjoining site but avoids excessive use of buff brick as at Winstanley Court and Hampden Gardens. Materials acceptable, but details required. Concept of the screen is supported, but more details should be provided. Condition specifying sample panels should be applied.

Bicycle and Bin storage

6.17 Cycle storage appropriate on the southern part of D1, and also

B, E and F. Access to block G parking is awkward. Bike storage on blocks D1 (main section) and D2 unsatisfactory. Bins and bikes have to be brought down narrow corridor. No clear

separation between mews style garage spaces of block D1 and D2 and the bike storage. This could result in damage and raise some security issues. Cycle and bin stores in blocks A and C not satisfactory. Bike sheds required for townhouses.

6.18 Considerably more work required to resolve the challenges

posed by the density of the scheme in relation to bins and cycles.

Car Parking

6.19 No visitor parking has been allocated. Unclear how spaces will

be allocated or whether the highway and parking spaces will be adopted. Garage units within block D1 and D2 too narrow. Concerns in relation to the security of bike spaces adjoining parking spaces in D1 and D2.

6.20 Some footpath links across main avenue between access road

and Block G are blocked by trees. Green link, whilst supported in principle, will force residents to take a convoluted route to their front doors or cross the green link. Details need to be provided to demonstrate how the ends of parking bays will be designed to stop vehicles driving onto the green link or the adjoining footpath. Trees need to be planted within a 2.5m wide space to enable people to pass either side of the tree trunk. Paths need to be aligned with the entrances to the buildings.

6.21 Concerns about control of car parking within central paved

space.

Conclusion 6.22 Proposed development is well-considered, has the potential to

be a high quality scheme. Scheme is commended for quality of the public realm. Concerns remain in relation to bins, cycles and car parking, especially in blocks D1 and D2. Cycle parking and bin storage is also inadequately designed in respect to blocks A and C.

6.23 Parking along main avenue entrance needs to be redesigned to

provide more space for tree planting and allow better pedestrian movement. Alterations required to the fenestration on block G, parking treatment at the end of block H, and private open space in the south-west corner.

6.24 Many of the problems in relation to bins and car and cycle

parking are related to high density sought. Second advice (after amendments) 6.25 Replacement of open space in SW corner with motorcycle

parking welcomed. 6.26 Bin and cycle storage issues in Blocks D1 and D2 resolved.

Wider planting bays in main avenue welcomed. Opportunities for grilles to provide ventilation to cycle stores and bin stores should be taken.

6.27 Block G security improved. 6.28 Scheme now acceptable in urban design terms.

Principal Landscape Architect

6.29 Generally support scheme. Concerns about space around trees, proximity of trees to buildings, species selected, wisdom of retaining existing birches on frontage. Conditions required.

Environment Agency

6.30 No objection provided that the conditions attached to the outline

permission are discharged. Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 13th April 2011) 6.31 CONCLUSION: Panel regarded this resubmission as a great

improvement on the previously consented scheme, for its appropriate screening of the railway line and more successful handling of the open spaces. The Panel particularly welcomed the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed for the development but, while approving of the overall layout strategy, still judged the density to be high, and felt that a further reduction in the volume of building would make it easier for the design to address the individual points raised by Panel.

6.32 Panel hopes that as the design develops the qualities of the

overall strategy, this will be matched by the careful

consideration given to the choice of materials and detailed design, particularly to elements such as the balcony framework.

6.33 VERDICT – AMBER (unanimous) 6.34 The relevant section of the minutes of this panel meeting are

attached to this report as Appendix C

Disability Consultative Panel (Meeting of)

6.35 Panel unable to determine details of lifts from the submitted plans. Disabled parking spaces not appropriately distributed. Not clear where 15% units for older or disabled users are provided. No information on accessibility in Design and Access Statement.

6.36 The above responses are a summary of the comments that

have been received. Full details of the consultation responses can be inspected on the application file.

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 The owners/occupiers of the following addresses have made

representations: 80 Brackyn Road 8 Brampton Road 101 Coldhams Lane 81 Cromwell Road 210 Cromwell Road 212 Cromwell Road 222 Cromwell Road 17 Romsey Road 32 Romsey Road 33 Winstanley Court

7.2 A representation has also been received from a resident of Stanley Road who did not supply his house number.

7.3 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Principle of development � overdevelopment

� too many flats Context, design and spaces � too high � not in character with the area � does not improve on visual quality of nearby developments � danger of rear block becoming a ‘sink estate’ � insufficient open space � no pedestrian or cycle links to other developments � car parking should be at rear of flats not at front � no space for activities such as ball games or barbeques � tree planting and landscaping required along whole of

frontage � issues regarding landscape maintenance � brickwork and balconies should more resemble Hampden

Gardens � amount of buff brick used should be limited � timber cladding should not be used � balconies should be large enough to accommodate two

people � metallic structure inappropriate Neighbour amenity � overlooking � overshadowing Transport impact � will exacerbate congestion at Coldhams Lane/Cromwell

Road junction Car and cycle parking � cycle parking space is poorly designed � insufficient car parking Noise � noise from flats � rear blocks too close to rail tracks � additional traffic noise

Planning obligations � Section 106 contributions should be used for local amenities

rather than public art

7.4 The above representations are a summary of the comments that have been received. Full details of the representations can be inspected on the application file.

8.0 ASSESSMENT 8.1 The outline permission 08/0500/OUT has already established

that the principle of residential development broadly of this scale on the application site is acceptable, and has also set out a framework of planning obligations, in line with which a Section 106 agreement has been completed. In the context of the existing outline permission and Section 106 agreement, the consultation responses and representations received and my inspection of the site and the surroundings, I consider that that the main issues are:

1. Context of site, design and external spaces 2. Affordable housing 3. Renewable energy and sustainability 4. Disabled access 5. Residential amenity 6. Refuse arrangements 7. Environmental health issues 8. Cycle routes 9. Car and cycle parking 10. Highway safety 11. Third party representations

Context of site, design and external spaces

8.2 I concur with the view of the Joint Urban Design Team that the

general layout of the scheme is appropriate, and that the rectilinear street pattern, the strong focus of the tree-lined avenue in the centre, the well-defined pedestrian routes, and the orientation and placement of the pavilion buildings on the north side of the site are positive features. The car parking layout adopted enables most occupiers to park close to their own flat, and ensures natural surveillance over a high proportion of the parking spaces, reducing the likelihood of

crime. The extent of planting in the Car parking areas, particularly the use of substantial trees, avoids the creation of barren, harsh spaces between the buildings.

8.3 I regard the scale and massing of the proposal as appropriate.

The rear blocks provide an appropriate level of screening from the railway. The relationship with the buildings on the Hampden Gardens site is harmonious. The use of three-storey buildings on the site frontage is not out of character with the two-storey buildings on the opposite side of the street; it replicates the scale relationship which already exists further south along the street. Design Panel suggested that the use of a six-storey section in the centre of the site as a focus to the development might be reconsidered. In my view, however, this is in accordance with the outline permission and is not at odds with the scale of other buildings nearby. I consider it appropriate.

8.4 The arrangement of Blocks A and C is, in my view, a further

positive feature. By having entrances on both sides of the blocks the number of active frontages is increased, and the degree of natural surveillance raised. I also share the view of the Joint Urban Design Team that the proportions and design detail of the elevations are appropriate, and that the screen in the south-eastern corner is a positive feature. I accept the view that conditions are required to control the quality of materials used.

8.5 In my view, the submitted scheme addressed the concerns

raised by Design Panel prior to submission about the relationship between the pavilion blocks (E and F), and the Greens Leisure site by moving these blocks further from the boundary, and Panel’s concern about the architectural vocabulary of the town house section by a reconfiguring of the roof. Subsequent amendments have also addressed the Urban Design Team’s concerns about cycle and bin storage in Block D, bin storage in Block C, tree planting and pedestrian routes on the main avenue, the fenestration of Block G, and the previously proposed open space in the south-west corner of the site (now motorcycle parking).

8.6 The Principal Landscape Architect is generally supportive of the

scheme. Her concerns relate to a number of issues about tree planting, including the species used, the spaces between trees and buildings, and the planting medium. I accept this advice

and I acknowledge that a satisfactory landscaping scheme might involve the replacement of some or all of the existing frontage trees, and a lower total number of trees on the scheme. In my view, these issues can be addressed by condition.

8.7 Questions are raised in representations about the quantity of

open space provided on the site. The Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 requires 2.2ha of informal open space per 1000 inhabitants, and 0.3ha of space for children and teenagers. On the basis of the Council’s formula for open space, the development as proposed would accommodate 248 people, and would therefore require 5456m2 of informal open space, and 744m2 of space for children and young people, a total area of 6110m2. The applicants identify three ‘open spaces’ to be provided on site, as described in paragraph 2.13 above: the south-east grassy area, the playspace courtyard, and the central paved space. This last will serve a dual purpose, as part of it also forms a section of the loop road through the site. In my view, the central avenue fulfils certain open space functions, particularly in lending greenness to the site as a whole, and softening the outlook from individual units which front it.

8.8 I judge the south-east lawned area to be 936m2 in extent, the

playspace courtyard 440m2, and the central paved area 338m2. The first two spaces would thus fulfil 23% of the combined requirement for informal open space and space for children and teenagers. If the central paved space is included, as I feel it should be, 28% of the requirement would be met. Given the location of this site on the margin between the urban and suburban zones of the city, and the proximity of Coldham’s Common, I consider this to be a reasonable proportion to provide on-site.

8.9 I acknowledge the suggestion made both by Design Panel and

the Joint Urban Design Team that the density of development proposed here has posed design challenges, particularly in respect to the provision made for parking cars and cycles and storing and collecting waste. However, I share the view of the JUDT that these challenges have largely been met, and that where they have not, the issue can be addressed by condition.

8.10 In my opinion the layout, design, scale and massing of the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, and 3/12.

Affordable Housing

8.11 The inclusion of appropriate affordable housing in the scheme is

guaranteed by a schedule in the Section 106 agreement associated with the outline approval. The applicants have entered into negotiations with a Registered Social Landlord about this aspect of the proposal, and details of the sizes, locations and tenure arrangements proposed were submitted with the application. The Head of Strategic Housing has raised concerns about the proposal because of the mix of unit sizes included, which does not conform to the requirements of the Affordable Housing SPD.

8.12 Following discussions with the case officer and the Head of

Strategic Housing, a revised scheme has been submitted which seeks to address the concerns raised. The distribution of units is indicated in the table below.

Market Shared

Ownership Social rented

beds 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 Block A 1 13 B 7 8 C 2 20 D 1 3 1 3 3 18 E 2 6 3 1 F 8 6 G 10 3 H 4 Total 18 48 3 4 3 19 3 3 22

8.13 I have sought advice from the Head of Strategic Housing about

the appropriateness and acceptability of the revised scheme. He has confirmed that the revised scheme is acceptable to the Strategic Housing team.

Renewable energy and sustainability 8.14 The outline permission on this site is subject to a condition

which requires the approval, before the commencement of development, of a scheme to generate at least 10% of the energy required by the development on-site by renewable means. The applicants have made no further submission about this aspect of the development at present. I am satisfied that the existing condition on the outline permission is sufficient safeguard to ensure that the requirements of policy 8/16 are met, but given that many of the technologies which might be included in a sustainable energy scheme require bulky plant, I am of the view that a clear informative is necessary to remind the applicants that renewable energy technologies put forward to satisfy the relevant condition on the outline permission may require planning permission in their own right.

8.15 In my opinion the existing condition will ensure that the proposal

is in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/16 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2007.

Disabled access

8.16 The Design and Access Statement provides little information on

this issue. Disability Panel have raised concerns about the dimensions of lifts, because the scale of the submitted drawings makes this difficult to measure with confidence. However, it appears to be clear that level access is provided across the site and to all the buildings. Car parking for disabled users is also provided. Panel’s concerns about its distribution can in my view be addressed by condition. The external design, layout and access arrangements of the development would enable occupation by those with disabilities throughout the scheme.

8.17 In my opinion the proposal is compliant (in respect of disabled

access) with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7, 3/12 and 5/9.

Residential Amenity

8.18 Issues of residential amenity arise only with respect to houses on the opposite side of Cromwell Road (180-222), the northernmost flats on the Hampden Gardens development, and

the first three houses round the corner on the west side of Coldham’s Lane (Nos. 150, 150A and 152).

180-222 Cromwell Road

8.19 All the buildings proposed on the frontage of the site are drawn

back from the Cromwell Road footway. This means that they are least 22m from the existing houses facing the site. At the northern end of the street, Nos. 214-222 are slightly further from the street, so this intervening distance gradually increases to about 28m. All the buildings on the site frontage are of three storeys. The closest area of four storeys would be 39m from the houses on the east side of the road, the closest area of five storeys 75m away, and the six-storey section 92m from the houses opposite. Neighbours have raised concerns about visual domination, overshadowing and loss of privacy.

8.20 The proposed buildings would be prominent in the outlook from

the neighbouring ‘east side’ houses, but in my view, they would not be unduly dominant, nor create any unacceptable sense of enclosure. The building-to-building distance across the street would be similar to that in most streets in Romsey, and greater than that in many. The proposed buildings would stand west or north-west of the existing houses, so sunlight could only be affected towards the end of the day. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that even at 4pm at the equinox shadows from the proposed buildings would not reach the houses opposite. It is possible that there would be shadowing later in the day, but it could only be for a limited period. 4pm shadows at the summer solstice would be a long way from reaching these houses. I am of the view that there would be a loss of sunlight to some or all of the houses from 180-222 Cromwell Road late on summer evenings, but in my view this is not significant enough to merit refusal of the application. The applicants do not provide shadow diagrams for midwinter, but in my view, the point of sunset is too far south at this time of year for the proposal to have any significant impact on houses opposite.

8.21 The garden areas and windows of 180-220 Cromwell Road

overlooked from the proposed buildings would be those facing the street. These do not generally enjoy any privacy, and notwithstanding the elevated position of some of the windows which are proposed, I consider that the distance between such

windows and the existing houses would be too great for any significant loss of privacy to occur. Most of the rear gardens of the existing Cromwell Road houses (which are in any case subject to considerable mutual overlooking at present) would be screened from windows and balconies in the proposed development, even those at the highest levels, by the mass of the existing houses themselves.

8.22 The case of 222 Cromwell Road is slightly different in that this

house has only very limited amenity space to the rear, and its principal garden space is to the side and the front, protected by a hedge from the street. A two-storey building with windows facing this garden previously stood on this part of the site, but I acknowledge that residential development has a different and potentially more significant impact on privacy in that it is likely to be occupied at times when residents would wish to use their gardens (evenings, weekends, and holidays). However, any loss of privacy for the occupiers of No. 222 would be limited, because of the distance involved, the position of retained trees on the application site, the position of the street tree on the opposite side of the street, and the existing boundary treatment to the garden of No. 222. The one problematic window, in my view, is the front second-floor bedroom window of the northernmost town house in Block H, which faces the garden of No.222, and is not screened by any trees. Reconfiguring the fenestration of this house to address this issue is not a simple matter, because the integrity of the elevation needs to be safeguarded, but I am of the view that it is possible, and that the matter can be satisfactorily addressed by a suitable condition.

Hampden Gardens

8.23 The north elevation of the rear block at Hampden Gardens does

not contain windows. No issues of overlooking, overshadowing or visual domination could arise here. The north elevation of the forward block at Hampden Gardens contains windows of bedrooms and living rooms on the ground, first and second floors. This elevation faces Block B of the current application, and the distance between the blocks would be 13m. The south elevation of Block B features windows only on the extreme corners of the building. I do not consider that these corner windows would cause any loss of privacy to occupants in Hampden Gardens because of their position and the limited angle of view which an observer within them would have. In my

view, the 13m space between the buildings is sufficient to ensure that the proposed Block B would not be unacceptably visually dominant when seen from these rooms in Hampden Gardens, and as Block B lies to the north of the Hampden Gardens building, there would be no overshadowing.

150A-152 Coldhams Lane

8.24 The proposed development is too far from these houses for

there to be any significant impact on outlook or sunlight. The gardens and rear elevations of these houses have little privacy at present. Rear fences are relatively low, and most of the rear elevations are exposed to view from Cromwell Road. The gardens of the three houses are mutually overlooked; boundary treatments provide no screening from upper windows, and the re is little planting of any significance. I do not consider that the occupiers of these houses would suffer any significant loss of privacy from the proposed development.

8.25 I do not consider that the dwelling mix proposed is particularly

likely to generate noise, nor do I consider that the level of noise generated by the development as a whole is likely to be significantly harmful to neighbour amenity. In my opinion the proposal adequately respects the residential amenity of its neighbours and I consider that it is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/7.

Amenity for future occupiers of the site

8.26 In my view, the layout now proposed provides an acceptable

standard of residential amenity for future occupiers. It avoids the shortcomings of the illustrative scheme put forward at outline stage: there are no north-facing single-aspect units, and a large number of units have an outlook on to the landscaped areas. Car parking is arranged so that it will not unduly dominate the prospect from any of the units. The concerns about security to the rear of Block G raised earlier by the Joint Urban Design Team have been resolved by detail amendments.

8.27 In my opinion the proposal provides a high-quality living

environment and an appropriate standard of residential amenity for future occupiers, and I consider that in this respect it is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 3/12.

Refuse Arrangements

8.28 Initially the Waste Strategy Manager raised issues about

storage and connection arrangements. Amendments have subsequently been made to this aspect of the scheme. Swept path diagrams for refuse vehicles have been shown, and the application now proposes that bins from blocks where the storage area is more than 10m from the refuse vehicle route will be moved to collection areas on the appropriate days. I calculate that the bin spaces provided for each block is now adequate for the number of people accommodated, although in some cases quite close to the threshold. I have sought confirmation of this calculation from the Waste Strategy Manager, and I will report any further advice on the amendment sheet.

8.29 The waste collection arrangements are only satisfactory if bins

are moved to the collection points on the appropriate days and returned to stores after collection. A management strategy is necessary to ensure this, which can be secured by condition.

8.30 Appropriate waste collection requires the collection vehicle to

use the loop road through the site. This road must therefore be constructed and maintained to the standard necessary to accommodate heavy vehicles. However, the highway authority has indicated that it will not adopt the site roads, and the Waste Strategy Team are concerned that the costs of such construction and maintenance, through long-term use, do not fall on the City Council. In my view the Council’s position on this issue needs to be safeguarded through a clause in a Section 106 agreement through which the applicants or their successors are committed to construction and maintenance of the loop road through the site to the necessary standard.

8.31 In my opinion, subject to the condition and planning obligation

indicated above, the proposal is compliant in respect of waste storage and collection with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12.

Environmental health issues

8.32 The Environmental Health team have raised concerns about the

discharge of conditions attached to the outline consent. Some

of these issues have been resolved since their initial advice, but not all. I recommend that any reserved matters consent should replicate some of these conditions to ensure that the issues are properly controlled. The issues involved are site lighting, contractors’ arrangements, working hours, construction noise, dust and mud, and piling.

8.33 Because of the proximity of the railway line, a noise insulation

scheme is required. Although this is required by Condition 24 of the outline approval, I recommend that it also be attached to any reserved matters permission.

8.34 Conditions 19 and 20 of the outline approval relate to ground

contamination issues. The issue of ground gas, covered by Condition 19, has been resolved and the condition discharged. Although action has been taken on the other contamination matters, there are still unresolved issues on the site. The advice of the Head of Environmental Services is that a ground contamination condition is necessary in connection with any reserved matters approval. I accept this advice.

8.35 Although there have been difficulties surrounding the discharge

of the existing conditions, they do not provide any reason to refuse the present application. Environmental Health issues are significant on this site, but they can, in my view, be satisfactorily addressed by conditions.

Cycle routes

8.36 The Cycling officer has indicated that the scheme should

provide a through cycle route to safeguard the completion of the Chisholm Trail strategic cycle route along the east side of the railway, and that a 6m corridor should be provided for this purpose. The space left to the rear of Blocks D1 and D2, adjacent to the railway, is only 2m wide at the southern end of the site, and narrows further to only 1.6m wide at the northern end, so it would not be adequate to provide a cycle route without the addition of land from the railway use itself. The mews street at the west end of the site would provide a route which could be linked to adjacent sites to provide cycle access away from Cromwell Road. This is not an ideal solution, because it would be shared with motor traffic, there are garages and car ports along its western side, which can be a hazard to cyclists, and a link at the southern end through the open space

would be necessary to complete the link to the Hampden Gardens site; for these reasons it does not meet the Cycling Officer’s aspirations.

8.37 However, this issue was not raised at the time of the outline

permission, and no condition was attached to that permission to protect the route. In this context, I consider it would be difficult to defend a reason for refusal on these grounds at the reserved matters stage. In my view, the proposal does not comply fully with policy 8/5 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), but this shortcoming does not provide a basis for refusal of the application. An informative should urge the applicant to co-operate with the City and County Councils and adjoining landowners to achieve the best possible cycle access through the site. Car and Cycle Parking

8.38 The proposal includes eight units of three bedrooms or more,

and 116 units of one or two bedrooms. As the site is not within the controlled parking zone, the maximum level of car parking which would be compliant with the City Council Standards is 16 + 116, a total of 132. The proposal includes 119 car parking spaces, including seven suitable for disabled users, which is close to this upper limit. The proposal also includes a car club space adjacent to Cromwell Road. In my view this is an appropriate level of car parking provision, which reduces the likelihood that excessive additional pressure on on-street car parking in the locality will occur. Such pressure is likely to increase from other sources, and can only be effectively ameliorated by a residents-only parking scheme. I do not consider it likely that there will be large numbers of two-car households accommodated on the site.

8.39 The City Council’s Cycle Parking Standards require 220 cycle

parking spaces for the combination of units proposed in the development. The application drawings show 218 cycle parking spaces, of which 188 are in cycle stores within the envelopes of all the buildings, varying in size from two spaces to 24 spaces. The remaining 30 spaces are outside.

8.40 The shortfall in cycle spaces is relatively small (although no

provision is made for visitor cycle parking). The revised drawings submitted address some of the concerns of the Joint

Urban Design Team and the Cycling Officer about cycle parking provision, particularly by separating car parking spaces beneath Block D from the adjacent cycle parking spaces, and by widening the corridors which lead to these spaces. A number of deficiencies in cycle parking remain:

� The distribution to blocks is uneven, Blocks A and C having

significant under-provision, while Blocks D and F in particular are over-provided

� Outdoor cycle parking is not compliant with the Standards � System for allocation of spaces is not specified � Cycle parking space in Block C in particular is too cramped � No visitor cycle parking, or cycle parking for the car club

space 8.41 The uneven distribution of space is not ideal, but in my view it is

an appropriate response to the need to make best use of the ground floor space in Block D, and is acceptable, especially as the cycle parking is in relatively small enclosures, which will give owners more confidence in their security. The other deficiencies are significant, but in my view there is scope to address these issues within the scheme submitted. A robust condition on cycle parking is essential to ensure acceptable standards, and this should be supported by an informative emphasising that there are significant issues which must be addressed, but in my view the present shortcomings do not provide a justification for refusal of the application.

8.42 In my opinion, subject to condition, the proposal is compliant

with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 8/6 and 8/10.

Highway Safety 8.43 The highway authority has raised no issues about highway

safety. The principle of the addition of traffic to the network at this point has already been accepted in the outline approval. The issues raised by the highway authority about layout and dimensions can be satisfactorily addressed in my view by conditions and informatives.

8.44 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/2.

Third Party Representations 8.45 I have addressed the following issues raised in the paragraphs

indicated.

Overdevelopment 8.1, 8.9 Too high 8.3 Not in character 8.3 Does not improve on quality of neighbouring developments

8.2-8.8

Insufficient open space/no space for ball games

8.7

Materials 8.4 Landscape issues 8.6 Car parking should be at rear 8.2, 8.9 Overlooking 8.21-8.24 Overshadowing 8.20, 8.23, 8.24 Exacerbate traffic congestion 8.43 Poorly designed cycle storage 8.39-8.41 Insufficient car parking 8.38 Noise 8.25

8.46 Three points from representations remain, relating to pedestrian

and cycle links, balcony sizes, and the use of planning obligation contributions. I agree with respondents that pedestrian and cycle links with adjoining sites would be an advantage. The present application proposes a layout which would leave these possibilities open, but there is in my view, insufficient basis in policy to make the absence of firm proposals to establish such links a reason for refusal. The City Council can continue to encourage landowners towards creating such links.

8.47 Many of the balconies and terraces proposed in this application

are of the larger size advocated in representations. I do not consider that the use of smaller balconies and ‘juliets’ elsewhere in the scheme is a reason for refusal; in my view such features are positive features, even if they do not provide the level of amenity offered by a larger balcony or terrace.

8.48 The scale and purpose of the planning obligation contributions

required from this development are fixed by an existing agreement which follows the framework set out in the Planning

Obligation Strategy current at the time of the outline application. To require contributions according to a different set of criteria would not be justifiable.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 In my view, the submission is a significant improvement on the

scheme illustrated in connection with the outline approval, and it responds appropriately to the context. It would provide a high-quality living environment, improve the quality of the area, and avoid any significant harm to the residential amenity of neighbours. Significant issues need to be addressed in order to meet the requirements of conditions I recommend, especially with respect to cycle parking, but I am of the view that this is the correct route to resolve these issues, and that the reserved matters should be approved.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. APPROVE subject to the satisfactory completion of the s106 agreement by 21st March 2012 and subject to the following conditions:

1. Details of any proposed floodlighting or external lighting shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan

2006 policies 3/11 and 4/15) 2. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details

of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

I) contractors access arrangements for vehicles, plant and

personnel, ii) contractors site storage area/compound, iii) the means of moving, storing and stacking all building

materials, plant and equipment around and adjacent to the site,

iv) the arrangements for parking of contractors vehicles and

contractors personnel vehicles. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance

with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties

during the construction period. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

3. Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning

authority in writing no construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties.

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 4. Except with the prior agreement of the local planning authority

in writing, there should be no collection or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0700 hrs and 1900 hrs on Monday - Saturday and there should be no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays.

Reason: Due to the proximity of residential properties to this

premises and that extensive refurbishment will be required, the above conditions are recommended to protect the amenity of these residential properties throughout the redevelopment in accordance with policies 4/13 and 6/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed, a comprehensive construction programme identifying each and every phase of the development and confirming construction activities to be undertaken in each phase and a timetable for their execution shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details unless the local planning authority agrees to the variation of any detail in advance and in writing.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13) 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby

approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), the applicant shall submit a report in writing, regarding the demolition / construction noise and vibration impact associated with this development, for approval by the local authority. The report shall be in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 - "Noise and Vibration Control On Construction and Open Sites, especially Part I: 1997 "Code Of Practice (COP) for basic information and procedures for noise and vibration control", Part 2: "Guide to noise and vibration control legislation for construction and demolition including road construction and maintenance" and Part 4: "COP for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations", (if the construction process is to involve piling operations). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13) 7. No development shall commence until a programme of

measures to minimise the spread of airborne dust and mud from the site during the demolition / construction period (which shall include provision for wheel washing) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13)

8. No development shall be commenced prior to a contaminated

land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the LPA for approval.

(a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk

study to be submitted to the LPA for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to investigations commencing on site.

(b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas,

surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

(c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works

and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the LPA. The LPA shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

(d) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on

site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance.

(e) If, during the works contamination is encountered which

has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the LPA.

(f) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from site.

Reason: to protect future occupiers from pollution. (Cambridge

Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 9. Prior to commencement of the development a noise insulation

scheme detailing a glazing and acoustically treated ventilation specification / scheme to reduce the level of noise experienced in the habitable rooms, as a result of the proximity of the bedrooms/living rooms fronting onto the railway line and engine shed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall not be altered without prior approval.

Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants of this

property from the noise of the railway. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

10. No development shall commence until details of facilities for the

covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage

of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6) 11. No occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take

pace until details of arrangements to prevent the parking of cars in the central paved area have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved arrangements shall be put in place prior to occupation, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory arrangements for car parking

and to protect open space for the use of future occupiers. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/8 and 8/10)

12. No occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take

place until a management plan for the storage and collection of waste and recycling on the development, which includes details of how bins will be moved to and from collection points on collection days, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The management plan shall be in operation prior to occupation, and shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants, and to

provide satisfactory waste storage arrangements. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

13. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, work shall not

commence on the block of town houses adjacent to Cromwell Road (Block H), until an amendment to the design and fenestration of the northernmost house to limit the possibility of overlooking towards the house and garden at 222 Cromwell Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Construction shall take place only in accordance with the approved amended details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambride Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 Under Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972, the following are “background papers” for each report on a planning application: 1. The planning application and plans; 2. Any explanatory or accompanying letter or document from the

applicant; 3. Comments of Council departments on the application; 4. Comments or representations by third parties on the application

as referred to in the report plus any additional comments received before the meeting at which the application is considered; unless (in each case) the document discloses “exempt or confidential information”

5. Any Structure Plan, Local Plan or Council Policy Document referred to in individual reports.

These papers may be inspected on the City Council website at: www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or by visiting the Customer Service Centre at Mandela House.

APPENDIX A

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL The Guildhall, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Ref: 08/0500/OUT ________________________________________________________ Rapleys LLP Maddox House 1 Maddox Street London W1S 2PZ _______________________________________________________ The Council hereby grant outline planning permission for Outline application for redevelopment comprising residential accommodation (class C3). at British Telecom 171 - 211 Cromwell Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 3BA in accordance with your application received 16th April 2008 and the plans, drawings and documents which form part of the application, subject to the conditions set out below:

1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure that all necessary details are acceptable.

(East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 8/2)

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made

to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 51 of

the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 51 of

the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 4. No development shall take place until samples of the materials

to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 3/14)

5. Before starting any brick or stone work, a sample panel of the

facing materials to be used shall be erected on site to establish the detail of bonding, coursing and colour and type of jointing and shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The quality of finish and materials incorporated in any approved sample panel(s), which shall not be demolished prior to completion of development, shall be maintained throughout the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the quality and colour of the detailing of the brickwork/stonework and jointing is acceptable and maintained throughout the development. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/12)

6. No development shall take place until full details of both hard

and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that

suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

7. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape

maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaped areas are maintained in

a healthy condition in the interests of visual amenity. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

8. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that

suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

9. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendation of the appropriate British Standard or other recognised code of good practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed by the local planning authority in writing. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure provision, establishment and maintenance

of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved design. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

10. No development shall take place until there has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) is/are occupied and retained thereafter unless any variation is agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate boundary treatment is implemented. (East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

11. Details of any proposed floodlighting or external lighting shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan

2006 policies 3/11 and 4/15) 12. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details

of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

I) contractors access arrangements for vehicles, plant and

personnel, ii) contractors site storage area/compound, iii) the means of moving, storing and stacking all building

materials, plant and equipment around and adjacent to the site, iv) the arrangements for parking of contractors vehicles and

contractors personnel vehicles. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance

with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties

during the construction period. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

13. Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning

authority in writing no construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

14. Except with the prior agreement of the local planning authority

in writing, there should be no collection or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0700 hrs and 1900 hrs on Monday - Saturday and there should be no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays.

Reason: Due to the proximity of residential properties to this

premises and that extensive refurbishment will be required, the above conditions are recommended to protect the amenity of these residential properties throughout the redevelopment in accordance with policies 4/13 and 6/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby

approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed, a comprehensive construction programme identifying each and every phase of the development and confirming construction activities to be undertaken in each phase and a timetable for their execution shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details unless the local planning authority agrees to the variation of any detail in advance and in writing.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13)

16. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), the applicant shall submit a report in writing, regarding the demolition / construction noise and vibration impact associated with this development, for approval by the local authority. The report shall be in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 - "Noise and Vibration Control On Construction and Open Sites, especially Part I: 1997 "Code Of Practice (COP) for basic information and procedures for noise and vibration control", Part 2: "Guide to noise and vibration control legislation for construction and demolition including road construction and maintenance" and Part 4: "COP for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations", (if the construction process is to involve piling operations). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13) 17. No development shall commence until a programme of

measures to minimise the spread of airborne dust and mud from the site during the demolition / construction period (which shall include provision for wheel washing) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13) 18. Confirmation or not that an on site concrete crusher will be used

during the demolition stage will be required. If not, confirmation of an appropriate alternative procedure that will be used will be required.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13) 19. No development shall be commenced prior to a contaminated

land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the LPA for approval.

(a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the LPA for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to investigations commencing on site.

(b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas,

surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

(c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works

and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the LPA. The LPA shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

(d) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on

site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance.

(e) If, during the works contamination is encountered which

has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the LPA.

(f) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be

discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from site.

Reason: to protect future occupiers from pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

20. Prior to the making of any Reserved Matters submission, a full,

a detailed remediation scheme and structural building design which deal with any potential gas and vapour issues relating to residual contamination on this site, must be submitted to and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason: to protect future occupants from contamination, the

nature of which may have limiting implications on the basic design of the final development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

21. Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for

the provision and implementation of pollution control to the water environment, which shall include foul and surface water drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory method of foul and surface

drainage and to prevent the increased risk of pollution to the water environment. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

22. No infiltration of surface water from the development into the

ground is permitted except with the written approval of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory method of foul and surface

drainage and to prevent the increased risk of pollution to the water environment. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

23. Piling and other foundation designs using penetrative methods

are not permitted other than with the written approval of the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of pollution to the water

environment. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

24. Prior to commencement of the development a noise insulation scheme detailing a glazing and acoustically treated ventilation specification / scheme to reduce the level of noise experienced in the habitable rooms, as a result of the proximity of the bedrooms/living rooms fronting onto the railway line and engine shed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall not be altered without prior approval.

Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants of this

property from the noise of the railway. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13)

25. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the

on-site storage facilities for waste including waste for recycling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall identify the specific positions of where wheelie bins, recycling boxes or any other means of storage will be stationed and the arrangements for the disposal of waste. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be retained thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision for waste storage and

recycling, to protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers and in the interests of visual amenity. (East of England Plan (2008) policy WM6 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/1, 3/4, and 3/12.)

26. Prior to the commencement of development, a renewable energy statement, which demonstrates that at least 10% of the development's total predicted energy requirements will be from on-site renewable energy sources, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall include the total predicted energy requirements of the development and shall set out a schedule of proposed on-site renewable energy technologies, their respective energy contributions, location, design and a maintenance programme. The approved renewable energy technologies shall be fully installed and operational prior to the occupation of any approved buildings and shall thereafter be maintained and remain fully operational in accordance with the approved maintenance programme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions

(East of England Plan (2008) policy ENG1 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/16).

27. The development shall not be brought into use until a scheme

for the provision of fire hydrants has been implemented in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure there is adequate hydrant provision for fire

fighting purposes (East of England Plan (2008) policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/1 and 3/12)

28. Residential units erected under this permission shall conform to

at least level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in respect of water use management measures and construction waste.

Reason: To ensure sustainable development and to avoid

waste of water and other resources. (East of England Plan (2008) policies SS1 and WAT1, and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/1)

29. No work shall start on the application site (including soil

stripping, pre-construction delivery of equipment or materials, the creation of site accesses, and positioning of site huts) until:

a) A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted to and agreed in

writing by the local planning authority.

(b) The developer has appointed a competent arboriculturalist

and there has been a site meeting between the site agent, the developer's arboriculturalist, and the Council's Arboricultural Officer.

(c) All development facilitation pruning, where required, has

been completed in accordance with BS 3998:1989. (d) All tree protection barriers and ground protection measures

have been installed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority

Reason: To protect the heath and welfare of the protected trees

on the site. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/4) 30. All Arboricultural works shall be carried out by a competent tree

contractor, proficient in both root-zone and aerial arboricultural work and shall follow strictly the agreed method statements and specifications.

The developer's arboriculturalist shall monitor, record and

confirm the implementation and maintenance of tree protection measures as set out in the conditions of the planning permission.

Reason: To protect the heath and welfare of the protected trees

on the site.(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/4) 31. No development shall commence until details of facilities for the

covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage

of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6)

32. INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in conjunction with the associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The applicant is reminded that under the terms of the s106 Agreement you are required to notify the City Council of the date of commencement of development.

33. INFORMATIVE: New development can sometimes cause

inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained from The Considerate Contractor project Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121).

34. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the Council will

expect any reserved matters submission made in pursuance of this permission to eliminate the problems of lack of natural surveillance and poor pedestrian environment created by the illustrative car park layout shown in the drawings submitted.

35. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the Council will

expect any reserved matters submission made in pursuance of this permission to include provision for a car club, and that at least one parking space for such a club will be provided within the development.

36. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded that earlier advice

from the Environment Agency, forwarded to the applicant's agent by the Council, contained a number of restrictions on the manner in which water may be managed and disposed of on the site.

37. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that in approving this outline application for residential development for up to 140 units, the Council must stress that although 140 is the upper limit for the number of residential units permitted, it cannot be presumed that that figure can be achieved. It will have to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, through a reserved matters submission, that the necessary on-site open space and all the other servicing requirements, cycle parking, car parking, waste storage and recycling areas and circulation space for 140 units can be provided, as well as the units themselves.

38. Reasons for Approval 1.This development has been approved subject to conditions

and following the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation , because subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development Plan, particularly the following policies:

East of England plan 2008: policies SS1, ENV7, ENG1 and

WM6 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: policies

6/1 and 9/8; Cambridge Local Plan (2006): policies 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 4/13, 5/1

and 5/5; 2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other

material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.

APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FORUM 28 September 2011 11.30 am - 1.10 pm Present: Members of the Planning Committee Councillors: Blencowe, Brown, Saunders, Stuart, Tunnacliffe and Znajek Other Members in Attendance Councillors Bourke and Smart Officers Sarah Dyer (City Development Manager - Chair), Tony Collins (Principal Planning Officer) and James Goddard (Committee Manager). For Applicant For Petitioners Ian Davies (Applicant) Susana Rios Russ Drage (Applicant’s Agent) Sharon Straughan

Colin Wiles Declarations of Interest None Application and Petition Details Committee: Planning Committee Date: 28 September 2011 Application No: 11/0902/REM Site Address: 171 - 211 Cromwell Road, Cambridge, CB1 3BA Description: Reserved Matters application pursuant to planning permission 08/0500/OUT for redevelopment comprising 124 residential units (Class C3) with car parking and landscaping Applicant: Ian Davies Agent: Russ Drage Lead Petitioner: Susana Rios Case Officer: Tony Collins Text of Petition: Concerns have been raised concerning the following – • The number of dwellings proposed on the site.

• The application design would be out of character with neighbours. • Neighbours would be overshadowed. • Density of traffic in the road, which would exacerbate existing issues. • Anticipated noise disturbance linked to traffic. Opening Remarks by Chair The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. She stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. Case by Applicant Mr Drage made the following points: 1) The application sought to improve the character and quality of the area. 2) The application sought to fit into the existing character the area. 3) The application design had been discussed with Planning Officers. Reference was made to the Consenting Scheme Supporting Plan. 4) Summarised details concerning the application’s design, the focus was around a central open space. 5) The scheme had been reviewed by the Design & Consultation Panel. The application reflected their comments to provide an emphasis on quality public realm. Case by Petitioners Mr Wiles spoke on behalf of local residents. He made the following points: 6) Residents accepted the need to develop the site, but were concerned this was occuring piecemeal in the area instead of through a joined up master plan. 7) Requested a quality development for the area in line with Accordia. Expressed local resident’s concerns that Cromwell Road lacked a cohesive character. Recent developments (Winstanley Court and Hampden Gardens) had mixed success in addressing and improving the street environment. 8) Residents wanted family housing, affordable housing and open space.

The development was predominantly 1 – 2 person flats. 9) There is a strong sense of community in Romsey Town, so the proposed site would have to encourage integration between new and existing residents if it went ahead. Ms Rios spoke on behalf of local residents. She made the following points: 10) Concerns of Local Residents: • Reiterated the desire for a quality development. • The development could exacerbate existing traffic flow and parking issues. • Overlooking. • Overshadowing. • Does not sit comfortably with the existing architecture. 11) Requested the scheme be amended as follows: • Downsize the scale of the development. • Decrease the number of storeys to five or even four, and to place the highest buildings at the back, like in previous developments. • Site 2 storey high blocks opposite terraced houses on Cromwell Rd. • The architectural style of the new development should match that of adjacent buildings. • Include more family housing to comply with the Local Plan. • Access to the site should be diverted from Cromwell Rd. Case by Ward Councillors Councillor Smart spoke as a City Ward Councilor on behalf of local residents. She made the following points: 12) Reiterated local residents desire for an application with a quality design and public realm. 13) Queried if south facing windows would lead to overheating issues. 14) Queried if the correct mix of housing had been proposed to foster a sustainable community. That is, 1 – 2 bedroom flats had a higher turnover of occupants, which could lead to a transient community. Councillor Smart asked if more family houses or 3 – 4 bedroom flats could be provided. 15) Queried if spaces were provided for car club vehicles. Councillor Bourke spoke as a County Ward Councilor on behalf of local residents. He made the following points: 16) Reiterated local residents concerns about the design of existing developments in Cromwell Road.

17) Reiterated requests to clarify if the correct mix of housing had been proposed. 18) Queried if housing density on site could be reduced. 19) Referred to Environmental Health Audit references to breech of process (eg discharge of conditions) and asked for issues to be addressed in the Planning Officer’s report. 20) Requested options concerning payments in lieu of community facilities to be addressed in the Planning Officer’s report. Case Officer’s Comments: 21) Policy consultations have been undertaken with local residents and statutory consultees. Members’ Questions and Comments: Messrs Drage and Davies answered as follows in response to Member’s questions and comments: 22) External balconies would provide shadowing to south facing windows. 23) 260 secure cycle store spaces had been provided in line with council policy. 24) Undercroft (eg garage) rather than underground parking would be provided, as would on street parking. 25) Car parking spaces were provided and spread across the site to break them up, in order to prevent them dominating the area. Parking spaces would be located near to houses. 1 space was allocated for a car club vehicle. 26) The design aimed to future proof the application through the provision of car club, car and cycle parking spaces. The Architect was happy to consider introducing electric car charging points in principle, subject to consultation with the Applicant. 27) The access road would not take up public realm area. The aim was to provide quality public realm and an appropriate access road. 28) The s106 agreement identified funding contributions to be provided, but did not make a specific reference to an on-site community facility. This

request could be fedback to the applicant. 29) The size of units was a response to market need. Predominately 1 – 2 bedroom flats were provided, but larger ones were too. 30) The site was on the boundary of Romsey Town and other areas. The development could not amend perceptions of previous developments, but looked to provide a quality design to meet local and commercial needs. The landscape in the application would provide a large public Development Control Forum DCF/5 Wednesday, 28 September 2011 5 realm area as a focal point for Cromwell Road to help integrate new and existing communities. 31) Flat and pitched roofs had been considered as part of the design. ‘Green’ flat roofs were not pursued in favour of other features such as solar panels. 32) 2 roof terrace gardens would be provided. Summing up by the Applicant’s Agent 33) Re-iterated a desire to proceed with site development. Summing up by the Petitioners 34) Accepted the need for a development. 35) Reiterated concerns previously raised with regards to: • Density. • Proposed mix of housing. • Design does not reflect the character of the area. Final Comments of the Chair 36) The Chair observed the following: • Notes of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties. • Application to be considered at a future Planning Committee. The meeting ended at 1.10 pm

APPENDIX C

Cambridge City Council Design & Conservation Panel

Relevant section of the notes of the meeting Wednesday 13th

April 2011 Present: Dr Nick Bullock Chair Slavica Mirovic RIBA Martin Lindus RIBA Russell Davies RTPI David Grech English Heritage Jon Harris Co-opted member Officers: Tony Collins City Council Matthew Paul City Council Charlotte Witheford City Council Lindsey Weaver City Council Observers: Cllr Damien Tunnacliffe City Council Presentation – 171 – 211 Cromwell Road With outline permission on the site for up to 140 dwellings (08/0500/OUT), this pre-application proposal seeks consent for a revised 129-unit scheme with associated landscaping. Presentation by Russ Drage of Russ Drage Architects & Masterplanners with Ian Davies of Weston Homes Plc. The Panel’s comments are as follows: � The Panel welcomed the reduction in the number of dwellings from

140 to 129 but wondered whether the mass of the development, particularly the sixth storey of the centre block nearest the single aspect housing, could be reduced to five thus creating a great sense of spaciousness at the northeast end of the ‘mews’.

� The Site Boundaries. The Panel thought the screening of the site from the railway to the northwest entirely appropriate, but questioned the proposed handling of the northeast boundary with the gym. The Panel judged the pavilions to be too close to the site boundary, the views from the rooms overlooking the gym too restricted and the space between them and the boundary gloomy

and heavily shaded. On one of the Powerpoint images this area is marked as ‘work in progress.’ Would there be a case for another single aspect block along this boundary, reducing the depth of the block and opening up yet more of the site for public use?

� The Panel considered that the handling of the relationship of the apartment block to the two storey dwellings and in particular, the use of a very different architectural vocabulary for what is in effect a continuation of the same building should be reviewed.

� Balconies: the supporting framework. The Panel thought that the balcony ‘screen’ would need to be made of a robust, high quality material because of its importance for the handling of the corner treatment of the blocks, although it was accepted that the elevations will be developed in more detail as the design progresses.

� Quality of the open spaces. The designers are to be praised for the successful opening up of the green space on the site, although the Panel recognise that this success is due in part to the ‘borrowing’ of green space from the neighbouring Hampden Gardens development. The Panel hoped it would be possible to ensure some areas of green space on the site for children’s ball games and play area.

� Parking. Knowing that underground parking is not an option, the Panel expressed concern that there would be some overspill of parked cars onto Cromwell Road, already heavily used for parking. A further reduction in the density of the development would help address this issue.

� Cycle parking. This is distributed throughout the site far more successfully than in the earlier plans.

Conclusion The Panel regarded this resubmission as a great improvement on the previously consented scheme, for its appropriate screening of the railway line and more successful handling of the open spaces. The Panel particularly welcomed the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed for the development but, while approving of the overall layout strategy, still judged the density to be high, and felt that a further reduction in the volume of building would make it easier for the design to address the individual points raised by Panel. The Panel hopes that as the design develops the qualities of the overall strategy, this will be matched by the careful consideration given to the choice of materials and detailed design, particularly to elements such as the balcony framework. VERDICT – AMBER (unanimous)

Elevation from Cromwell Road

Ground floor plan

Perspective from Cromwell Road

Section along central avenue

Aerial view from northeast