Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meetings held on 1 October 2025 and 29 October 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee minutes list public speakers at Committee. Please view the recording of the meeting on Cambridge City Council - YouTube to see/hear more detail about statements from public speakers and Ward Councillors.

DFD masterplan

Applicant: Anglia Ruskin University

Pre-application Developer Presentation

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

1.    What would the height of the buildings be in future?

2.    Could you outline the vision for the connecting routes around East Road? Would there be any other improvements to enhance the journey between campus sites?

3.    Would the developers bring forward a Masterplan in future?

4.    Would Cambridge University be included in partnership working?

5.    Small number of car parking spaces should be commended.

6.    Presumption that ARU would have plans to grow their student numbers as part of this development?

7.    Routes through campuses for the public would be welcomed.

8.    Could alternative proposals to retain the East Road underpass as a community space be factored into plans?

9.    New students could be provided with travel advice to prevent congestion and parking problems.

10.                  Welcomed plans for an access road to Newmarket Road.

11.                  The developers should work closely with Council officers and others to coordinate with the ongoing work on the Grafton Centre.

12.                  Could the developers consider alternative access links to East Road, for example using the area around St Matthew’s Street?

13.                  Would an enclosed pedestrian bridge be safer than a new crossing?

The Committee noted the appeals list.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for alterations to the existing access including improvements to the roadway by installing an impermeable surface, the introduction of an infiltration trench to provide drainage for the new impermeable surfaces, the removal of an existing hedgerow and replacement with planting, the provision of additional cycle parking for users of the Plant Growth Laboratory, and the resurfacing of St Marys Access road with a delineation of kerb line for the pedestrian route.

The Senior Planner updated his report by referring to an additional objection on the amendment sheet.

A local resident addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.

Rebecca Saunt (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Tim Bick (Cambridge City Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. 

Councillor Flaubert proposed and Councillor Howard seconded deferring the application to seek information on a heritage consultation and an ecological survey.

The Committee:

Councillor Smart left the Committee before this item was considered and did not return.

Councillor Thornburrow joined the Committee before this item was considered and took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

Councillor Dryden proposed, and Councillor Griffin seconded, the nomination of Councillor Todd-Jones as Vice-Chair for items 25/108/PLAN and 25/109/PLAN.

Resolved unanimously that Councillor Todd-Jones be Vice-Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a single storey dwelling with garden and off-street car parking, on the land adjacent to No. 49 New Square.

The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to letters received from the applicant and objector as follows:

      i.          Forsters Solicitors had written on behalf of the applicant to comment on substantial harm, they aim to summarise their views on how the harm should be categorised based on case law and suggest that where the building is not being altered there is a higher burden to demonstrate substantial harm would result. They outline their views including that: the building is not architecturally significant; the garden is not visible from the public highway; there is no private legal right of view; the proposal site is not within the original curtilage of the listed house; any harm is outweighed by the public benefit of a city centre residential dwelling.

     ii.          Neighbouring objector responded to the above letter, they suggest that the legal framework for determining harm was based instead on the NPPF (2024) and LBCA (1990) and that the more relevant points are to consider that the building was listed and therefore benefits from protection. They noted that the site was publicly visible, and the garden did inform the setting of the building irrespective of historic alterations. They suggest that committee should consider the views of the Conservation Officer, rather than rely on the letter.

Kate Wood (on behalf of Willow Walk residents) addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.

Dr Carrie Herbert MBE (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Tim Bick (Cambridge City Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report.

The Committee received an application for Listed Building Consent for a single storey dwelling with garden and off street car parking, on the land adjacent to No. 49 New Square.

The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to representations received from the applicant and objectors since the report was published. (Details set out in previous minute item.)

A local resident addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.

Dr Carrie Herbert MBE (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report.