Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Sarah Steed Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Ashwood, Bird, Hipkin, Turner
and Van de Weyer. Councillors Smart and Williams attended as alternates. The Chairman noted that the meeting was not quorate but proceeded with the
planned agenda as there were no items of business that required a decision |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
|||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2016 as a correct record. Minutes: As the meeting was not quorate the minutes of the meeting held on 21
June were noted and would be brought to the next meeting to be approved. |
|||||||
Pre-application Briefing - Cambridge Airport Cambridge Airport Engine Testing Facility. Minutes: The Committee received a presentation on the proposed engine testing facility at Cambridge Airport. Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Answers were
supplied, but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers were
to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes. 1.
Asked
if alternative sites were considered for the facility such as RAF Mildenhall. 2.
Commented
that sites 3 & 4 were considerably closer to dwellings in Abbey and
questioned whether residents in Abbey would be affected more than were
currently by the present location of the engine testing site. 3.
Questioned
whether Blast Deflectors Incorporated were the only
supplier of ground running enclosures. 4.
Questioned
whether the modelling of noise pollution was based on the largest engine that
could be tested at the site. 5.
Asked
if the number of proposed affordable homes would decrease if additional costs
were incurred by increasing the height of the facility. 6.
Commented
that the comparison data of noise pollution was not like for like and requested
data for site 4. 7.
Asked
whether the noise levels at Nuttings Road would
increase significantly for the residents if the facility was relocated to the
preferred site (3). 8.
Queried
if the height of the facility was increased would it affect the safety of the
airport. 9.
Questioned
what safeguards would be in place to ensure employee safety at the site. 10.
Questioned
who would benefit from the site being moved as there was little residential
housing at the present location. 11.
Commented
that none of the site could be occupied as part of the proposals and questioned
if that was a problem if land was sold off to developers. 12.
Asked
what defence aircraft would be tested at the site. 13.
Questioned
if there would be an increase to aircraft engine testing at the site if the
development was approved. 14.
Asked
whether the 80db maximum noise output at the site could be adhered to when the
latest Boeing 737 aircraft generated 90db. 15.
Asked
how safety would be ensured for the area surrounding the blast deflector site. 16.
Questioned
if air pollution levels would be affected by the development. 17.
Questioned
why the engine could not be attached to a smaller dolly rather than the
aircraft. 18.
Asked
how long engine tests lasted for. 19.
Questioned
whether following the recent European Union referendum result Marshalls
Aerospace and Defence were confident that business would not affected. 20.
Queried
how plans for new schools in Cherry Hinton would be affected by the proposed
development. 21.
Questioned
how air flow to the engine was maintained when the site was closed in. 22.
Asked
how testing was affective if the wind was coming from a different direction. 23.
Asked
whether monitoring reports would be submitted to the Council if the development
was approved regarding noise and pollution levels. 24.
Questioned
the tolerance levels for the maximum noise outputs and whether they were
modelled on actual aircraft using the facility.
|