Agenda and minutes

The Chair gave permission for the meeting to be filmed and audio recorded. It was confirmed that the filming would take place from a fixed position and cease if members of the public or speakers expressed a desire not to be filmed. Members of the public were given an opportunity to state if they did not want to be filmed.

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Bard, Tucker and Corney. Councillor Wotherspoon was present as an alternate.

 

In the absence of Councillor Bard, Councillor Blencowe took the Chair for this meeting.

 

 

Name	Item	Interest
de Lacey	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Wotherspoon	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Van de Weyer	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Shelton	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Reid	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign and Cambridge Past Present and Future.
Manning	13/73/JDCC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.   Disclosable Pecuniary Interest: Employer has an office on the Science Park that, although not within the bounds of the planning application, will derive benefit from the new rail station.   Addressed the meeting and left the room before the debate started

 

13/73/JDCC: Councillors de Lacey, Wotherspoon, Van de Weyer and Shelton stated that they had been present when Cambridgeshire County Council had considered a motion on this matter, but had not voted, and came to this meeting with an open mind. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th November 2013 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting of the 20^th November 2013 were agreed as a correct record.

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

 

The Committee received a Reserved Matters application (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of 11/1114/OUT and S/1886/11/O (North West Cambridge Scheme) for:

 

(1) The Primary Street surface finishes including seating, bins, bollards, cycle parking, underground bin laybys, surface water drainage swales, hard and soft landscaping.

 

 (2) Phase 1 infrastructure including buried services and utilities, drainage pipework and engineered swales, ground slabs and sub-surface works for utility structures, initial Western Edge earthworks, surface water lagoon excavation, two stage channel and engineered road build up on utility corridors.

 

The Senior Planner introduced the report as per the agenda.

 

Public Speakers

 

The Committee received representation from two public speakers.

 

Robin Irvine

 

Robin Irvine addressed the Committee and made the following comment in objection to the application:

 

     i.        As a resident of Girton, he has concerns regarding drainage arrangements.

    ii.        Residents near Washpit Brook had concerns about increased flood risks.

   iii.        Drainage arrangements have been based on current building proposals and do not take account of the impact of any future infil.

  iv.        Concerns had been raised about who would be held responsible for any future floods.

   v.        Would like an assurance that flood risks remain on the agenda in the future.

 

Heather Topel

 

Heather Topel addressed the Committee on behalf of the University of Cambridge and in support of the application.

 

Councillor Reid asked for more information on the scale and purpose of the bunds.  Officers confirmed that the proposed earthworks would not prejudice the future development of the Western Edge through the subsequent Reserved Matters application and made an offer to provide that technical information outside the committee, which was accepted

 

 

Councillor Hipkin questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance for the primary street and would materials be available for repair procedures?  Officers provided reassurance that the materials would be standard products, available for the Highway Authority in the future and confirmation was provided that the adoption agreement included the landscaping materials.

 

The Committee praised the quality of the materials proposed for the public realm areas of the site.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the Reserved Matters 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.

The Committee received a Reserved Matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) application for Lot 5 located within land between Huntingdon Road, Madingley Road, and the M11, North West Cambridge pursuant to 11/1114/OUT and S/1886/11/O (North West Cambridge Scheme) for: Post Graduate Accommodation comprising 325 student bed spaces, associated porters lodge, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, strategic drainage works, associated ancillary structures, part of strategic green corridor and part of strategic cycle and pedestrian route.

 

The Principal Planner introduced the report and drew the Committees attention to the additional condition detailed in the amendment sheet.

 

Public Speaker

 

Heather Topel addressed the Committee on behalf of the University of Cambridge and in support of the application.

 

The Committee welcomed the additional condition and expressed satisfaction with the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the Reserved Matters 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.

Update briefing on proposals relating to Darwin Green1 (formally known as NIAB), Darwin Green 2 and Darwin Green 3.

The Committee received a presentation from Marcia Whitehead of Bidwells regarding the Darwin Green development. The presentation updated the Committee on the progress to date and on future work streams. Timeframes were outlined for the discharge of conditions. The Committee were informed that the S106 agreement had been signed and that the planning permission would be issued that afternoon.

 

Members raised comments/questions as summarised below. Answers were supplied, but as this was an update briefing on proposal relating to Darwin Green 1, 2 and 3, none of the answers were to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes.

 

1.   Viewing the development as one scheme rather than three plots was difficult due to boundary issues.

2.   Queried where the school would be located and when would it be delivered.

3.   Members requested that a copy of the presentation, including the latest drawing, be available to all councillors.

4.   Queried the ability of the SUDS scheme to cope with the expected volume of water.

5.   Queried why the holding pond had been relocated and the impact this would have on its performance.

6.   Queried future governance of the area and asked if a new Parish would be created.

7.   Queried the measures in place regarding possible contamination of the land by its previous use for GM crops.

8.   Queried the width of cycle paths.

9.   Queried the number and location of allotment provision.

Pre-application briefing on reserved matters proposal for 140 dwellings.

The Committee received presentation from Jonathan Gimblett of Countryside Properties, Andrew Matthews of Proctor & Matthews Architects and Steve Walters of SW Planning. The presentation covered the site layout and dwelling mix.

 

Members raised comments/questions as summarised below. Answers were supplied, but as this was a pre-application briefing on reserved matters, none of the answers were to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes.

 

1.   The quality of the design was welcomed.

2.   The origins of the design brief and relationship to other developments, such as the Accordia site, was queried.

3.   Relationship of the housing layout to the school, in particular drop off points, was questioned.