Decision details

The Committee received a Regulation 3, Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 application. The application sought permission for the proposed Cambridge Station Interchange (CSI) comprising a new railway station and car park together with an interchange facility providing access onto the wider public transport network (bus, cycle and pedestrian links).  Linkages into the existing ‘Guided Busway’ network by a new bus route within the site to connect to a longer section of Busway to its junction with Milton Road. Associated landscaping and public realm works.

 

The committee received an additional amendment sheet and noted the updates.

 

Public Speakers

 

The Committee received representation from ten public speakers.

 

Klaas Brümann on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign

 

Klaas Brümann addressed the Committee and made the following comments in objection to the application:

     i.        Cambridge Cycling Campaign support the principle of the station project, however, concerns raised have not been addressed.

    ii.        A cycle bridge should be approved first.

   iii.        Shared cycle and footpath arrangements proposed will not be sufficient for the high use anticipated.

  iv.        Junction in the area will be unsafe for cyclists and will cause cyclists to turn into the path of heavy goods vehicles.

   v.        A safe route from the station to the Science Park is needed.

  vi.        Improvements are needed to access points.

 

Sean McGrath on behalf of Indigo Planning acting for the Crown Estate

 

Sean McGrath addressed the Committee and made the following comments in objection to the application:

 

     i.        The Crown Estate supports in principle of the station.

    ii.        The Business Park employs 3,000 people.

   iii.        Access from the station to the Business Park needs to be improved.

  iv.        Proposed access via Cowley Road North will add to the journey time.

   v.        The Crown Estate are willing to add an access point and request that this be added as a condition prior to approval.

 

Shirley Larthwell

 

Shirley Larthwell addressed the Committee and made the following comments in objection to the application:

 

     i.        Residents whose gardens back on to the rail tracks have concerns about train noise and vibrations.

    ii.        Could barriers and low noise track be considered?

   iii.        Barriers would also reduce the impact of additional lighting.

  iv.        Will there be a survey into the additional noise once the station is up and running?

   v.        If yes, will the results be made public?

 

Michael Bond on behalf of Old Chesterton Residents Association

 

Michael Bond addressed the Committee and made the following comments in objection to the application:

 

     i.        There is a lot of support locally for an Area Action Plan.

    ii.        The proposed junction at Nuffield Road appears unsafe.

   iii.        All buses should have access to the station and should not be hampered by tracks for the guided bus.

  iv.        Proposed transport links need improvement.

   v.        Encouraging cyclists to use Bramblefields would diminish the character of the area.

  vi.        Station users will park in residential streets to avoid parking charges.

 

Bob Menzies Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery

 

Bob Menzies addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and made the following comments in support of the application:

 

     i.        The station would be a catalyst for development both locally and regionally.

    ii.        It would bring huge benefits to the area.

   iii.        The New Bridge proposal was under investigation.

  iv.        Access concerns of the Business Park could be solved by simple agreement between landowners.

 

Jeremy Tucker on behalf of Trinity Estates as owners of the Science Park.

 

Jeremy Tucker addressed the Committee and made the following comments in support of the application:

 

     i.        The Science Park is internationally renowned.

    ii.        It employs around 5,000 people.

   iii.        Additional, sustainable transport links are very welcomed.

  iv.        Growing companies are keen to relocate to the area.

   v.        A new station is important for future growth.

 

Mike Derbyshire of Bidwells

 

Mike Derbyshire addressed the Committee and made the following comments in support of the application:

 

     i.        The project has wide stakeholder support.

    ii.        Grateful for the vision.

   iii.        Would urge the committee to approve the application.

  iv.        Partnership working would be welcomed for the next phase of the project.

 

Stan Doyle, Project Director, Atkins

 

Stan Doyle addressed the Committee and made the following comments in support of the application:

 

     i.        The application follows a long consultation process.

    ii.        The comments of the Design Quality Panel were welcomed.

   iii.        The Public Square has been designed to allow equal access to all forms of transport.

  iv.        The design reflects the form and scale of the Cambridge.

 

Gill Prangnell, Policy Adviser, Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce

 

     i.        The Chamber is proud of the Cambridge brand.

    ii.        The station would be welcomed.

   iii.        It would allow better access and reduce congestion.

  iv.        Improved connectivity would benefit the wider area, including Ely and the A10 corridor.

   v.        It is essential for future growth.

 

David Gill, Managing Director of St John’s Innovation Centre.

 

David Gill addressed the Committee and made the following comments in support of the application:

 

     i.        The station would be welcomed.

    ii.        Small businesses would benefit.

   iii.        Taxi journeys across Cambridge would be reduced.

  iv.        Tenants of the Innovation Centre find current transport links difficult.

   v.        Additional cycle routes would be welcomed.

  vi.        Further development to the North of Cambridge would follow the opening of the station.

 

Gerri Bird, Cambridge City Councillor

 

Councillor Bird addressed the Committee and made the following comments regarding the application:

 

     i.        The Chesterton area is changing and local residents are concerned.

    ii.        A public meeting showed little support for the proposal.

   iii.        Any increased through route, across Bramblefields, would change its character.

  iv.        Any increased use would be likely to result in calls for wider paths and lighting which would damage the area.

   v.        It was small, but highly valued locally.

  vi.        The area needs to be protected and additional fencing would help.

 vii.        Increased parking and traffic levels in residential streets would be problematic.

viii.        The station would not be of benefit to locals but they would be most inconvenienced by it.

  ix.        Please consider the concerns of locals and protect Bramblefields.

 

Ian Manning, Cambridgeshire County Councillor

 

Councillor Manning addressed the Committee and made the following comments regarding the application:

 

     i.        Represents all residents of Chesterton.

    ii.        There has been considerable local consultation.

   iii.        Changes had been made following the consultation and in response to representations received.

  iv.        The Cowley Road access point is not yet fixed and further consultation will follow.

   v.        The original proposal has been changed to offer more protection to Bramblefields.

  vi.        The County Council has made a commitment to listen to local residents and to consult with the City Council.

 vii.        Car and cycle parking arrangements have been changed to accommodate three access points to avoid concentrations of problems.

 

Hazel Smith, South Cambridgeshire District Councillor, Milton

 

Councillor Smith addressed the Committee and made the following comments regarding the application:

 

     i.        The development was welcomed.

    ii.        Improved infrastructure to the East of the station was needed.

   iii.        Fen Road access needed improvement and a bridge over the railway was needed as businesses were increasingly cut off.

  iv.        The area has a long history of flooding and local resident have concerns about flash floods.

   v.        The development would create a large area of hard surfaces and swales may not be sufficient to cope with the volume of water.

  vi.        A drainage strategy was needed.

 vii.        There is a risk that the land is contaminated.

viii.        Milton Parish Councillors would like to be able to comment on the drainage arrangements and would like this matter to come back to Committee.

 

Mike Mason, Cambridgeshire County Councillor

 

Councillor Mason addressed the Committee and made the following comments regarding the application:

     i.        As a former British Rail and Traffic Commissioner, the traffic interchange was welcomed.

    ii.        Present design not good enough.

   iii.        The 40 metre walk from the bus stop to the station was unacceptable.

  iv.        The City Centre interchange is poor and the new station needs to be an improvement.

   v.        Lack of escalators inconveniences those who are less mobile.

  vi.        Lifts would be better located in the centre of the platform.

 vii.        The design has too many stairs.

viii.        The aesthetic qualities of the building have been prioritised over the practicalities.

  ix.        All buses should be allowed access to the site.

   x.        Suggested deferring the application as there was a need to get the design right from the outset.

  xi.        Current design is not fit for purpose.

 

The Development Management Officer (County Council) responded to the public speakers and stated that the issues raised had been considered. Further consultation regarding Milton Parish Council’s drainage concerns was planned and could be reported back to this Committee if required.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

     i.        It was regrettable that the Quality Design Panel did not have an opportunity to comment on the revised plans.

    ii.        It was suggested that the ‘Game of Life’ design was unrecognisable and added nothing to the plans.

   iii.        It was regretted that the station plan could not be linked to a requirement to build the New Bridge.

 

The Committee expressed concerns that the capacity of the site for future expansions had not been fully considered. However, officers stated that a modular design had been selected to allow for expansion later.

 

Members expressed concerns that an Area Action Plan had not been produced and that this could have long term implications. County Development, Minerals & Waste Planning Manager stated that a prematurity argument was not appropriate as the social and economic benefits of the proposal could not wait for the extended timeframes required to produce such a plan.

 

The Head of Planning Services stated that further testing of an Area Action Plan was needed. A joint strategy involving Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council would be considered in February 2014. Members suggested that the plan should go ahead while the funding was available.

 

Members discussed the concerns of local residents regarding increased traffic and road safety. The following issues were raised:

 

     i.        Concerns were raised that the traffic predictions did not take into account future growth.

    ii.        Junctions in the vicinity would see increased waiting times while the overall impact would be less congestion.

   iii.        Motorists using the station would use residential streets as short cuts.

  iv.        Street parking would have an impact on East Chesterton.

   v.        Concerns were expressed that, due to land constraints, only minimum standards could be achieved on cycle paths.

  vi.        Concerns were raised that the access point to the station site would bring cyclists into conflict with heavy goods vehicles.

 vii.        Concerns were raised that the plans were being rushed and that cycle safety and the impact on local residents had not been fully addressed.

viii.        Using a track owned by Network Rail and outside the scope of this application was suggested.

 

The Development Management Officer (County Council) suggested that the Cowley Road junction could be redesigned to address concerns regarding traffic conflicts. In addition, it was suggested that a scheme could be developed, at the detailed design stage, which would give cyclist and pedestrians, priority.

 

Members supported the suggestion that the guided bus did not need to be guided in the vicinity of the station. The Head of Planning stated that this matter was covered by a separate, freestanding consent.

 

The Committee considered the speakers concerns regarding Bramblefields. It was agreed that a condition requiring a workable scheme, agreeable to stakeholders and returned to this Committee at a later date, be added.

 

The Committee considered the report section by section.

 

Section 4

Members questioned how much consideration had been given to the immediate neighbours with regard to noise and vibration. Officers stated that this had been considered and having recently had the benefit of results of rail track testing locally and that it was the speed of trains rather than the type of track was the key factor. Trains would be travelling at low speed and the impact had been assessed as not significant.

 

Section 7

It was agreed that further details on drainage plans would come to this Committee at a later date.

 

Section 8

Members discussed Bramblefields and suggested that while the ecological value of the site may be low, its importance to the local community was not. As already agreed, this matter would be considered at a later date following further consultation.

 

Section 9

Members were concerned that the current plan does not require the Photo Voltaic Panels on the cycle storage areas to be transparent. Officers stated that this option can secured through a revision to the wording of either condition 3 (material samples) or 5 (Renewable Energy) which will require the submission of materials to be agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Members agreed that alternative wording for the condition could be agreed under delegated authority to officers.

 

 

Section 12

The value of the Public Art provision as a percentage of the scheme was questioned. This was unknown but was included in the conditions of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the Regulation 3, Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 application in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. Conditions relating to Site drainage arrangements, Bramblefields, Cowley Road Access routes and Rail noise (section 19 to 23) would be returned to this Committee for approval.

 

Amendments as per tabled amendment sheet

 

Condition 19 (in the published report as condition 20)

Control of noise from the station public address system   The station shall not be used until a scheme for  the mitigation of noise from  any public address system on the approved development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been  implemented in full. The scheme shall include hours of operation, number, location and sound power of loudspeakers and permissible noise levels with consideration of noise mitigation / limiting measures as appropriate and a programme of maintenance.  Any public address / announcement or voice alarm sound system associated with the approved development / use shall only be used for operational, health & safety, security and emergency announcements.   Reason: To safeguard and  protect the amenity of nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with policies NE/15 and DP/6 3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies (Adopted July 2007) and policy 3/11 of the Cambridge City Council Local Plan (2006)

Condition 20 (in the published report as condition 21)

Control of noise from the pickup point, guided busway and platforms   The development shall not be used until a scheme to mitigate noise emissions from the pickup point/taxi rank, Cambridge Guided Busway and  platforms affecting residential properties in Long Reach Road and Kerry’s  Yard and Sunningdale Caravan Park,  has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been implemented in full.   The scheme shall be maintained thereafter.   Reason: To safeguard and  protect the amenity of nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with policies NE/15 and DP/6 3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies (Adopted July 2007) and policy 3/11 of the Cambridge City Council Local Plan (2006)

 

The following conditions shall be brought back to committee before scheme approval:   ·        13 in the published report, but 12 as amended through  the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        14 in the published report, but 13 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        15 in the published report, but 14 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        16 in the published report, but 15 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        19 in the published report, but 18 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        20 in the published report, but 19 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        21 in the published report, but 20 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        22 in the published report, but 21 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        23 in the published report, but 22 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        26 in the published report, but 25 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013 ·        28 in the published report, but 27 as amended through the pre committee amendment sheet dated 18/12/2013