Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Lord. Councillor Page-Croft was present as the Alternate.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Baigent	All	Personal: Member of Extinction Rebellion and the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Councillor Page-Croft	20/32/Plan	Personal: Discretion unfettered. Application is in Queen Edith's Ward where she is a councillor.
Councillor Thornburrow	20/36/Plan	Personal and prejudicial: Would speak as a Ward Councillor.   Proposed to withdraw from the discussion and meeting, and not vote. [Item was adjourned.]

 

-        21 July 2020

-        5 August 2020

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2020 and 5 August 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received an outline application (all matters reserved except for means of access in respect of junction arrangements onto Worts' Causeway and Babraham Road).

 

The application sought approval for erection of up to 230 residential dwellings and up to 400m2 (GIA) of non-residential floorspace within Use Classes A1/A3/A4/B1/D1, new landscaping and public realm, car and cycle parking, infrastructure, other associated works following the demolition of all existing buildings on the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer updated her report to recommend a Clause 3 implementation period: Development should occur within 3 years of permission being granted.

 

Mr Hasselder (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor McGerty (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                Since submitting an objection to this application, ward councillors had continued to engage with both the applicant and the planning service.

ii.               Local Schooling (Support):

a.    Had recently been assured by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service that Cambridgeshire County Council had committed to providing an additional year group intake at Queen Edith’s Primary School as and when demand made that necessary.

b.    As previously acknowledged, the size of the developments at GB1 and GB2 combined did not trigger the need for a new school. But without an undertaking to school the anticipated 30 extra pupils per year group within a short cycle ride of home, the developments fall down on their commitment to sustainability, as it would potentially trigger a large number of additional car journeys.

iii.             Loss of Biodiversity (Object):

a.    From the outset, this development promised that building a mixture of new homes and green open spaces on a formerly “monocultured” arable field, would allow for a net gain in biodiversity. This had not been delivered.

b.    Expressed concern that the council’s own Nature Conservation Officer “welcomes” the 18% loss of onsite biodiversity (section 6.21, page 40) that would result from this development. Did not think the council should welcome such as outcome. It was far too easy to highlight the calculated net gain arising from financial contributions to offsite locations while glossing over the failure to achieve this where people will live.

c.    Questioned the report’s conclusion on agenda page 66, of a 10% net gain in biodiversity when including the offsite contributions. Urged the committee to request more detail of how this was proposed to be achieved.

d.    Queried what proportion of the £52k financial contribution was destined to be spent on simply upgrading the car parks?

iv.             Usable Open Space (Object):

a.    Urged the committee to reject the current application on the grounds it was not compatible with Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan. This was because the majority of the area described as Informal Open Space, as defined in Appendix I of the Cambridge Local Plan as “including recreation grounds, parks, natural greenspaces” is formed from the gas safety easement zone which sits above the high pressure gas main at the south east of the site. It would not be fully accessible by the public nor usable in either a formal or informal manner. Asked the committee to insist on clarification of exactly how the space above this major safety hazard can and cannot be used by the public and decide if this can reasonably be classified as Informal Open Space.

 

Councillor Kettel (Parish Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                Expressed concern about site access from Wort’s Causeway/Babraham Road due to heavy traffic levels. The application would exacerbate congestion.

ii.               There was inadequate infrastructure in the local area. The local school and doctor surgery would be affected by the development.

iii.             There was less open space in the area than the application suggested. A busway was anticipated. Great Shelford would be impacted by [southern] city development.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation requesting:

      i.          Redrafting of the foul water informative as a condition.

     ii.          Condition 20 be re-worded to reference the 2020-2025 Water Resources Management Plan by Cambridge Water.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a condition be included prioritising open space on site.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for outline planning permission and access points in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.          the prior completion of an Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

     ii.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;

a.    Condition 20 would be re-worded to reference the 2020-2025 Water Resources Management Plan by Cambridge Water [delegated authority given to Officers to draft the wording];

   iii.          the following additional conditions, with delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Spokes:

a.    Clause 3 implementation period: Development should occur within 3 years of permission being granted;

b.    Redrafting of the foul water informative as a condition;

c.    A condition prioritising open space on site.

The committee had to adjourn the meeting due to technical issues before this application could be considered.

 

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.