Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: Agenda item 8 (23A Hooper St) may be taken before item 7 (44 George St)
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Green and Baigent. Councillor
Thornburrow attended as the Alternate. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2019 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||
19/0340/FUL - John Banks Honda 444 Newmarket Road PDF 227 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of student accommodation with 154 student rooms
(following demolition of existing buildings). Together with ancillary accommodation
comprising common/study rooms, laundry room, management office, plant room, bin
and bicycle enclosures, landscaping and associated infrastructure including a
Sub-Station. The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to amended conditions
on the Amendment Sheet. Details had been changed in response to comments from
consultees that had been received close to the committee date. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a Camcycle Representative. i.
This application was not truly
sustainable. ii.
People would have difficulty
accessing the site by bicycle. iii.
It would be difficult to access
the Chisholm Trail. iv.
If the application were to be
approved, the following might be appropriate to secure by condition: a.
Power assisted cycle storage
facilities. b.
A toucan crossing near the site. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a Cambridge Past, Present and Future Representative. i.
CPPF did not object to the
application of itself. ii.
Expressed concern that modern
flats were being installed behind the Leper Chapel. This would cause harm to
the setting of the chapel, as referenced in the Urban Design Team’s comments
(P38 of the agenda pack). iii.
The city was growing, this
development could impact on its character. Any harm done to the historic
character needed to be mitigated in some way. iv.
If this application were approved
some form of compensation was required to mitigate its appearance in the
setting of the Leper Chapel, plus the local distinctiveness provided by
Barnwell Lake and the adjoining meadows. Mr Pittock (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Sargeant proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to remove reference to “local”
in “local resident streets” in the student management plan to mitigate parking
across the city. The amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that the drainage management
scheme should be in place prior to commencement. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, subject to: i.
The conditions recommended by the
Officers. ii.
The prior completion of a S106
Agreement to secure: a.
The financial contributions specified in paragraphs
8.32 – 8.34 with delegated authority for officers to negotiate an appropriate
financial contribution for a toucan crossing (if required) as described in
paragraph 8.35; and b.
A planning obligation which secures the planning
objectives in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policy 46 and its supporting text
(For the avoidance of doubt these objectives are: the securement of a formal
agreement and appropriate controls, to ensure the development is solely
occupied by the identified institution, Anglia Ruskin University, during term
time and to ensure Proctorial control over the ownership of cars by students
occupying the development.); and iii.
The following additional
conditions: Environmental
Health conditions Plant noise condition Prior to the installation of plant, a scheme for the insulation of the
plant in order to minimise the level of noise emanating from the said plant
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
and the scheme as approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby
permitted is commenced. Acoustic assessment compliance The noise insulation scheme and mitigation requirements as stated within
the Cass Allen “noise assessment” revision 2 dated 4th March 2019
(RP01-18774) shall be fully implemented, maintained and not altered. Artificial Lighting Prior to the installation of any artificial lighting, an artificial
lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall
include details of any artificial lighting of the site and an artificial
lighting impact assessment with predicted lighting levels at proposed and
existing residential properties shall be undertaken. Artificial lighting on and off site must meet
the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations contained
within the Institute of Lighting
Professionals Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light - GN01:2011
(or as superseded). The approved lighting scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated
in accordance with the approved details / measures. Alternative ventilation scheme Prior to the commencement of development/construction, details of an
alternative ventilation scheme for the accommodation units to negate / replace
the need to open windows, in order to protect future occupiers from external
traffic noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Full details are also required of the operating noise
level of the alternative ventilation system.
The scheme shall be installed before the use hereby permitted is
commenced and shall be fully retained thereafter. Drainage Conditions Surface water drainage scheme No development, apart from
above ground works and demolition, hereby permitted shall be commenced until a
surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage
principles and in accordance with Cambridge City Council local plan policies,
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved
details before the development is occupied. The scheme shall be based
upon the principles within the agreed Flood risk and drainage strategy prepared
by Richard Jackson (ref: 48949) dated March 2019 and shall also include: a)
Details of the existing surface water drainage arrangements
including runoff rates for the QBAR, 3.3% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)
(1 in 30) and 1% AEP (1 in 100) storm events; b)
Full results of the proposed drainage system modelling in the
above-referenced storm events (as well as 1% AEP plus climate change) ,
inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and disposal
elements and including an allowance for urban creep, together with a schematic of
how the system has been represented within the hydraulic model; c)
Detailed drawings of the entire proposed surface water
drainage system, including levels, gradients, dimensions, pipe reference
numbers, green roof, permeable paving and rain gardens; d)
A plan of the drained site area and which part of the
proposed drainage system these will drain to; e)
Full details of the proposed attenuation and flow control
measures; f)
Site Investigation and test results to confirm infiltration
rates; g)
Temporary storage facilities if the development is to be
phased; h)
A timetable for implementation if the development is to be
phased; i)
Details of overland flood flow routes in the event of system
exceedance, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on
site without increasing flood risk to occupants; j)
Full details of the maintenance/adoption of the surface water
drainage system; k)
Measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving
groundwater and/or surface water l)
Formal agreement from a third party if discharging into their
system is proposed, including confirmation (and evidence where appropriate)
that sufficient capacity is available. m) The
drainage scheme must adhere to the hierarchy of drainage options as outlined in
the NPPF PPG. Reason To ensure that the proposed
development can be adequately drained and to ensure that there is no increased
flood risk on or off site resulting from the proposed development. Management and Maintenance No development, apart from
above ground works and demolition, hereby permitted shall be commenced until
details for the long-term maintenance arrangements for the surface water
drainage system (including all SuDS features) to be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details should
identify runoff sub-catchments, SuDS components, control structures, flow
routes and outfalls. In addition, the plan must clarify the access that is
required to each surface water management component for maintenance purposes.
The maintenance plan shall be carried out in full thereafter. Reason To ensure the satisfactory
maintenance of drainage systems that are not publically adopted, in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs 163 and 165 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. Foul Drainage No building hereby permitted
shall be occupied until foul water drainage works have been implemented in
accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. Reason To ensure that the proposed
development can be adequately drained and to ensure that there is no increased
flood risk on or off site resulting from the proposed development Green Roof Policy Notwithstanding the approved plans, all flat roofed elements within the
development shall be green or brown roofs. No development above ground level,
other than demolition, shall commence until full details of these green or
brown roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The details shall include details of
build-ups, make up of substrates, planting plans for biodiverse roofs,
methodologies for translocation strategy and drainage details where applicable.
The green roofs shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and
shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of responding suitably to climate change and
water management (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 31) Management Condition The development shall be
occupied and managed only in accordance with a Student Housing Management Plan
that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority prior to commencement of occupation of the development and shall
prohibit students from owning cars within the city. Reason: In the interests of
residential amenity and impact on the local highway network (Cambridge Local
Plan 2018 policies 46 and 81). |
|||||||||||||
17/0869/FUL - 19-21 Godesdone Road PDF 368 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the erection of a residential development containing five
units (one 2xbed flats, three 1xbed flats and one studio unit) following demolition
of the existing buildings on site. The Principal Planner made reference to amendments contained in the
amendment sheet. Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. Resolved
(unanimously) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
The proposal by virtue of the lack of external
amenity space for flats 3, 4 and 5 fails to provide an acceptable level of
residential amenity for future occupants of these units. As such, the
proposal fails to comply with Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 50 and the
National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
ii.
The proposal harms the character of the Riverside
and Stourbridge Common Conservation Area by virtue of the scale and bulk of the
proposal which would be out of proportion with the traditional forms of this
part of the Conservation Area. The eaves and ridge height would interrupt
the predominant roofline and would be unduly visually dominant. The
presence of dormer windows on the front elevation would be out of character
with Godesdone Road which forms part of the
Conservation Area. As such, the proposal fails to comply with Cambridge
Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 57 and 61 and the National Planning Policy
Framework (2019). |
|||||||||||||
18/1661/FUL - 44 George Street PDF 199 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing house
and replacement with two new dwellings (1 one-bedroom house and 1 two-bedroom
house). The Planning Officer referred to further letters of objection. Details
of the properties and a summary of the objections was
contained in the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident on behalf of themselves and a neighbour. The representation covered the following issues: i.
This was the third planning
application on this site. ii.
Overlooking into rear garden was
cited as a reason to reject an earlier planning application in respect of the
property. iii.
Impact on the amenity of the
neighbour’s garden. iv.
Obscure glass was not sufficient
to prevent overlooking. v.
The developer had not meaningfully
consulted with neighbouring residents. vi.
Net loss of 2 parking spaces,
which would add pressure to on-street parking where 100% of spaces were
occupied overnight. vii.
Overdevelopment of the site. viii.
The development did not meet the
Lifetime Homes requirement. ix.
The development would remove a 3
bed house and replace it with a 2 bed house and a 1 bed unit. x.
Disagreed with the case officer’s
summary report, it did not accurately reflect the significant overlooking of
the Objector’s house. Dan Brown (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Dalzell
(West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Residents had raised concerns with him. ii.
Noted the Applicant’s comments and acknowledged
that he had attended a resident’s meeting and wanted him to continue to work
pro-actively. iii.
Overlooking. iv.
Overdevelopment of the site. v.
Referred to unit 2, which included a fourth level
as a basement, noting that no planning use had been specified for it. vi.
Referred to paragraph 8.6 of the Officer’s report
which dealt with space standards. vii.
Commented that unit 2 could be advertised and sold
as a 2 bed property, whilst permission would be for a 1 bed property. viii.
Noted there was no ensuite
in unit 2, which might be expected in a 1 bed property, but instead the
bathroom and toilet are shown separate. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||||||||
19/0902/FUL - 23A Hooper Street PDF 169 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the change of use from existing automobile repair shop
(vacant unit) to a mixed use Class B2 (microbrewery) and Class A4 (drinking establishment)
and installation of cycle storage facilities. The Planning
Officer referred to amendments contained in the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The primary issue was noise concerns from large
numbers of people drinking outside and inside where there was poor insulation.
ii.
Authorities were aware of noise issues as
complaints had been made.
iii.
Questioned if anyone would like a drinking
establishment at the back of their garden.
iv.
Referred to Environmental Health Officer comments
in paragraph 6.4 of the report.
v.
Commented that current provider did not stop
customers drinking on the street when the weather was fine, so gates / fences
were required.
vi.
Commented on a discrepancy in the hours of
operation between paragraphs 8.18 and 10.5 of the officers
report. Sam Calverley (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Principal Planning Officer explained the discrepancy in the hours of
operation and confirmed (with reference to the Environmental Health team’s
comments) that the hours conditioned were correct. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers including the verbal update to correct a typographical error on
condition 11 be amended to read: 11. The premises shall be operated and used for
the purposes as details/defined within the Planning Statement; Ref: Calverleys Brewery, 23a Hooper Street, Cambridge (prepared
by Maidenhead Planning and dated 4th June 2019) and for no other purpose
(including any other purposes in Class A4 or B2 of the schedule to the Town and
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to
the Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with
or without modification) without the granting of a specific planning
permission. Reason: To protect
the amenity of the adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local
Plan 2018 policy 35). Councillor McQueen left the meeting after
the consideration of this item and did not return. |
|||||||||||||
18/1828/FUL - 80 Chesterton Road PDF 191 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a new two storey
dwelling. Councillor
Tunnacliffe proposed and Councillor Thornburrow seconded an additional landscaping
condition to restrict car parking. The amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by all present) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the officers with three additional conditions: 17. Prior to the occupation of the development,
a landscape scheme to prevent off-street car parking outside the new dwelling,
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved landscape scheme shall be installed prior to occupation of the new
dwelling. The landscape scheme shall be retained in perpetuity. Reason: in the interest of visual amenity
(Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55 and 61) 18. Prior to occupation of the development, a
plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary
treatments to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority Boundary treatments to adjoining gardens should
include sufficient gaps (150mm X 150mm) to allow access for hedgehogs. The boundary treatment shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation or the
bringing into use of the development (or other timetable agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority) and retained as approved thereafter. Reason: To ensure an appropriate
boundary treatment is implemented in the interests of visual amenity and
privacy and to ensure it allows movement of hedgehogs (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 policies 55, 57, 59 and 70). 19 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, a
plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority detailing the proposed specification, number and locations of
internal and / or external bird boxes on the new building. The bird boxes shall
be installed prior to the occupation of the new dwelling and subsequently
maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: to provide
ecological enhancements for protected species on the site (Cambridge Local Plan
(2018) policy 70). |
|||||||||||||
19/0212/FUL - Oakley Lodge, 627-631 Newmarket Road PDF 131 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for change of use from Hotel (C1 Use) to
House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (sui-generis). The Senior Planning Officer referred to the amendment contained in the
amendment sheet. John Dadge (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to refuse the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report. |
|||||||||||||
19/0511/FUL - 10 Chaucer Road PDF 196 KB Minutes: Councillor Thornburrow left the Committee
table for the determination of this item taking no part in it other than to
address the Committee as a Ward Councillor. She moved to
the public seating area. The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of existing indoor
swimming pool and linking conservatory, and demolition of single storey garage
and storage shed. Internal alterations to York House, including replacement of
windows. Erection of 2 storey side extension containing private swimming pool
and fitness room. Erection of detached single storey, oak framed garage and
detached outbuildings. The Planning Officer referred to amendments contained in the amendment
sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Circulated an additional site
plan. ii.
The property was a Building of
Local Interest. iii.
A private leisure facility was
proposed to be built. iv.
The proposal was a large addition,
over 29 metres long, over 2 floors. v.
The position of the development
along the boundary was troublesome. vi.
Referred to impacts detailed on
the shadow diagrams during the month of March. vii.
Height, length and position of
development would create shadowing. viii.
Questioned if the development was
fair or reasonable. ix.
Referred to pumps / boilers being
positioned on the boundary and the potential for vibrations and noxious gas
from these structures. x.
Development was contrary to the
Southacre Conservation Area plan. Alison Wilkinson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support
of the application. Councillor
Thornburrow (Trumpington Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Referred to Local Plan policies 55 and 58 and
context of development. ii.
The development was within the Southacre
Conservation Area. iii.
Development should preserve or enhance existing conservation
Area. There were no public benefits which outweighed the harm proposed in this
development to the neighbours of the Southacre Conservation Area. iv.
The scale of the development was large and would
double the footprint of the existing building. v.
Increasing plot density. vi.
Chaucer Road had a discreet character area. vii.
Both properties were examples of Edwardian Arts and
Craft buildings. viii.
Questioned whether the development preserved the
setting of both of the historical buildings.
ix.
Referred to policy 197 of the NPPF. The Committee took a vote on the officer’s recommendation and this was
lost by 2 votes to 3. The Committee: Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: i. The proposal, by virtue of its bulk, scale, mass, proximity to 12 Chaucer Road, including the introduction of three boiler flues to the common boundary, would result in an un-neighbourly form of development, causing an unacceptable and overbearing impact, overshadowing and consequent loss of amenity to the occupiers of 12 Chaucer Road, contrary to policies 55 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). ii. The proposed development, by virtue of its bulk, scale and massing would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the South Acre conservation area, contrary to policies 55, 58 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). |
|||||||||||||
19/0469/FUL - 101 Perse Way PDF 165 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the change of use to an 8 bed (10
person) HMO (sui generis), together with erection of two-storey side and rear
extension, single-storey front and rear extensions, rear roof extension, and
detached cycle store in rear garden. The Planning Officer referred to an amendment contained in the amendment
sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Did not object to people extending
their properties but this development was solely for profit. ii.
There could potentially be 10
vehicles at the property, so parking could be an issue. Questioned where the
vehicles would be park. iii.
Commented that plans did not show
the children’s play area and noted that existing resident’s parked on a public
footpath. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||||||||
18/1552/S73 - 8 Seymour Street PDF 144 KB Minutes: Determination of this application was deferred to allow for the provision of further supporting information and plans to clarify the impact of the development on adjoining residential windows. |
|||||||||||||
19/0169/FUL - 18 Eltisley Avenue PDF 135 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought retrospective planning permission for a single
storey rear extension and decking. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
No consultation had taken place. ii.
Assumed work would be minor and
similar to other work which had been completed elsewhere on the street. iii.
Had approached planning
enforcement who confirmed that a retrospective planning application was
required. iv.
Had lost the chance to be involved
in the development of the application due to delays. v.
The scale of the glazing was
visually dominant at the rear and side of the house. vi.
The decking increased the overlooking. vii.
Disagreed with the officer’s
statement that the extension did not significantly adversely impact on
neighbour’s amenity. viii.
Suggested as a compromise the
glazing was replaced. The Applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Cantrill
(Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The main issue to be considered was privacy between
two terraced properties in a Conservation Area. ii.
Applicant believed they were able to undertake
the development under permitted development rights following advice from the
planning department, however was subsequently advised by officers that the
development was not permitted development and that a retrospective application
would need to be submitted. iii.
Noted that the properties were late 19th
/ early 20th century and may require some updating for modern
living. iv.
Referred to Cambridge Local Plan policy 58 and
paragraphs b) and e); which dealt with use of materials and the impact on the
surrounding area and neighbouring properties and amenity value. He thought this
was a balanced judgement. He noted that
one Ward Councillor took a different view but his view was that the application
did not meet requirements contained in policy 58. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by all present) to grant the
application for retrospective planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report. |
|||||||||||||
19/0992/FUL - 2 Green End Road PDF 152 KB Minutes: The Committee agreed by a majority vote to defer determination of this
application, applying the 6pm Committee cut off. |
|||||||||||||
Cambridge Science Park PDF 73 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal seeks
to provide a framework through a s106 Agreement which will manage car parking
on the Cambridge Science Park and encourage a modal shift away from single car
use. A Member Briefing on the proposal was delivered to the Cambridge City Council
Planning Committee in September 2019. If the proposal was agreed the framework
would be a material planning consideration on planning applications for
providing a car parking cap for any future schemes on the Science Park. The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Officer. A member of the public made the following comments: i.
Their aim was to reduce pollution. ii.
The report stated that car parking would increase. iii.
The Principal Planning Officer referred to a Member
Briefing which members of the public were not able to attend. iv.
Commented that the report stated it would take 8
years to restore car parking levels to that pre-development. v.
There was no mechanism for reporting back to the
Committee. vi.
There was no mention of a s106 Agreement in the
report and this only appeared in the recommendation. vii.
Noted that the application would link into work
being undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership in relation to transport
provision. viii.
Questioned how the matter would be enforced. ix.
Asked the committee to reject the
recommendation. Guy Kaddish (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee made the following comments in response to the Officer’s report:
i.
The report did not take into account the Climate
Emergency which the Council had declared.
ii.
Increased car parking may encourage members of the
public to use their cars.
iii.
The s106 Agreement was a way to change policy so
that the number of parking spaces could be reduced without putting the applicants
in breach of planning conditions.
iv.
Understood only half of the car parking spaces on
the Cambridge Science Park were utilised.
v.
Questioned parking controls on the site.
vi.
Questioned if there were any limits on the number
of car parking spaces on the Cambridge Science Park. The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions:
i.
The proposed s106 Agreement (to be executed by
Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire
County Council and the landowner) would form a material consideration in the
determination of any future planning applications within the red line of the
Science Park .
ii.
The North East Cambridge Area Action Plan should
include transport guidelines for future development.
iii.
The s106 Agreement seeks to limit the number of car
parking spaces going forward.
iv.
South Cambridgeshire District Council had a policy
requirement to provide 1 parking space per 30sqm, Cambridge City Council had a
requirement to provide 1 parking space per 40sqm, the Hub had a requirement for
the provision of 1 parking space per 45sqm. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 0) to delegate
authority to officers to negotiate, secure and complete, the S106 Agreement for
car park management on the Cambridge Science Park. |