Issue - meetings

Councillor Turner left before the beginning of this item.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a building comprising of an office B1 (a) floor space and ancillary ground floor retail (A1/A3) floor space, associated landscaping and public realm improvements and a 125 space car park.

 

The Committee noted the amendment presented in the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Matthew Danish, Cambridge Cycling Campaign. The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Raised concern over the destruction of the section of Cycle Way between Milton and Cambridge North Station.

    ii.        The cycle route was likely to become busier over time, therefore it needed to be segregated in order to avoid potential collisions between cycles and pedestrians.

   iii.        30 objections had been submitted to this application.

 

Mike Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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

     i.        The access doors to the building lead directly onto an existing cycle path which caused danger to both the pedestrians exiting the building and cyclists using the cycle path.

    ii.        Demand and use for the cycle path would only increase as the Cambridge North Station became more popular which would heighten the risk of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.

   iii.        Raised concern that the cycle route alignment which had previously been approved was now under threat.

  iv.        No Area Action Plan was in place for the wider site so the Committee had to consider what vision they had for the area and how they would like to see it develop for the future.

   v.        The new cycle route proposed by the applicant introduced inconveniences such as lengthening the existing route, right angles and crossing the Bus Way. The impact would see cyclists taking an easier/more direct option of crossing the main square which would be occupied by pedestrians; this increased the risk of conflict and collision.

  vi.        The proposals breached planning policy, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Local Development Framework Policy TR4 by providing inadequate space for both pedestrian and cyclist use on the path. The proposal also breached guidance in the Local Transport Plan which required the Cycle Way and Chisholm Trail to have a good design with clearly defined areas for use.

 vii.        National standards of dual use paths also advocated segregation if the paths were likely to be busy.

viii.        Highlighted that the area already had a thriving cycling and walking community, this application went against this ethos.

  ix.        Suggested that setting the development back and changing its footprint would allow more space to maintain the cycle route and safer access to the building.

   x.        Referred to the tree and landscaping proposals on page 156 of the agenda, asserted how a planter at the entrance of the office would block the view to both cyclists and pedestrians further.

  xi.        Highlighted the concern the Lead Flood Authority had expressed regarding drainage of the site.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Team Leader and Senior Planning Officer said the following:

     i.        Referred to the cycle path and stated that the current route which crosses the busway down to Moss Bank would have to change regardless of this application. Assured that there would be options for routes in all directions.

    ii.        The cycle path was used by people destined for Cambridge North Station and those using it as a through route along the Chisholm Trail. Installing a segregated section in front of the office would not mean the remainder of the route would be segregated as well. 

   iii.        Highlighted that Officers proposed a condition to prevent tables and chairs being placed outside the office building so as not to obstruct the path further.

  iv.        Confirmed that the Lead Flood Authority were content with the drainage proposals.

 

The Lead Highways Development Manager said the following:

     i.        Stated that there were limits to the advice he could give because the land was owned by Network Rail and was not public highways.

    ii.        Highlighted that the development was constrained because of the land available to access the station.

   iii.        As demand for the station increased the path would inevitably get busier so conflict between users was likely to increase.

  iv.        Commented that dual use of the cycle path between cycles and pedestrians could work effectively if user behaviour changed.

 

Principal Transport Officer said the following:

     i.        Had looked at the Transport Assessment and had considered alternative options.

    ii.        Travel Plan Plus (TP+) designed bespoke measures for transport plans to try and make the best use of available space.

 

 

The committee were minded not to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application and to refuse the application. On the basis of the poor design of the cycle route adjacent to the office building and lack of set back of the office building and its impact in terms of pedestrian and cyclist conflicts.  The committee adjourned at 13:10 to consider the appropriate text necessary to express the reason for refusing the application

 

 

The committee reconvened at 13:30

 

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 13 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

The section of the proposed cycle route directly adjacent to the office building, by reason of its proximity to the building, relative to the lack of set back of the building and insufficient curtilage for the ground floor retail units, and its design, including inadequate width, would fail to provide an acceptable layout and would therefore result in unacceptable conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, contrary to Policy TR4 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Development Control Development Plan Document July 2007.