A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Committee Manager

No. Item




Apologies were received from Councillors Cuffley, de Lacey and Baigent (Councillor Gawthrope attended as an alternate).



Declarations of Interest






Councillor Bradnam



Personal- Cambridge North Station was inside her parish district and ward.

Councillor Van de Weyer


Personal- He had been lobbied by Cambridge Cycling Campaign and consultants to the application.





To follow


The minutes of the previous meeting on 18 October had only recently been published, it was agreed that they would be considered at the next meeting on 13 December 2017.


16/2212/FUL - Cambridge Airport, Newmarket Road pdf icon PDF 361 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee received applications for full planning permission for an Aircraft Engine Ground Running Enclosure and supporting infrastructure works, including a new taxiway link and other associated works. 


The Committee noted the amendment referenced in the amendment sheet.


Des Taylor from Marshal Aerospace addressed the Committee in support of the application.


The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

  i.  Referred to the PowerPoint slide which illustrated noise contouring and asked if this noise prediction was based upon favourable wind conditions.

  ii.  Asked if the representations received were from surrounding residents or businesses. Raised concern about the impact of noise on residents especially on Saturdays when more people were likely to be at home.

  iii.  Stated that the proposed location of the new Ground Run Enclosure meant that some streets would be more adversely impacted by noise than others. The worst affected streets contained mainly Local Authority housing, suggested this was unfair given that the City Council were contributing to making the decision to move the site.

  iv.  Asked whether planes would be tested outside the Ground Run Enclosure when the wind conditions were unfavourable. If this was the case, asked if a condition could be put in place to stop planes being tested outside.


In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following:

  i.  Highlighted that the degree of noise would be impacted by the wind direction. The noise contouring image showed the levels when wind conditions were down wind and favourable.

  ii.  Confirmed that all the representations received were from residents apart from one.

  iii.  Nuttings Road and Uphall Road were the closest residential roads to the proposed Ground Run Enclosure location. The site already experienced noise from the current location; the scale of change would be approximately a 5 decibel increase.

  iv.  Referred to page 64 of the agenda (proposed condition 13) and confirmed that in exceptional circumstances planes would be tested outside of the Ground Run Enclosure. The planning condition required the precise details of the arrangements for testing aircrafts outside to be submitted to the planning authority to be determined separately.Agreed when questioned by Members that if the information to discharge this condition was not considered acceptable, because of adverse impacts on residential amenity, it could be refused


The Committee:


Resolved unanimously 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.




S/2372/FL - Land adjacent to Cambridge North Station, Milton Avenue (Hotel) pdf icon PDF 2 MB


The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a 217 bed hotel with ancillary ground floor retail (Use Class A1/A3) floor space, associated landscaping and public realm improvements and a 20 space car park.


Mike Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.


The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

  i.  Raised concern over the lack of parking and disabled parking provision. If parking wasn’t provided customers were likely to park in the surrounding residential area displacing the issue.

  ii.  The disabled spaces closer to the station were not appropriate for hotel customers; they were located too far away. Asked if a condition to provide more disabled spaces could be included.

  iii.  Commented that the building design was aesthetically poor. The blank flank wall also appeared overbearing.

  iv.  Queried why a sprinkler system had not been included in the plan. Asked if it this could be addressed at a later date.


In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planning Officer said the following:

  i.  The development had provided only limited parking to encourage sustainable methods of transport. One disabled space had been provided on the site which equated to the policy requirement of 5%. 24 additional blue badge disabled spaces were available to use off-site in the square closer to the station.

  ii.  The design of the building had gone before the Design Quality Panel twice; they were content with it and considered it appropriate. The ‘hit and miss’ brick work added detail, the flat high wall had been purposely designed to enclose the square.

  iii.  108 cycle spaces were available for customers to use off-site in the square, 1000 more cycle spaces were available closer to the entrance of the Station.

  iv.  Stated that the issues surrounding disabled parking provision could be addressed through delegated authority.

  v.  Confirmed a sprinkler system could be addressed in the conditions.


The Committee:


Updates at Committee:

1) Reference to installation of sprinklers to be included as alternative in condition 41 (fire hydrants) 2) Further reference to disabled parking provision to be included in condition 52  with respect to need to ensure that disabled parking needs are addressed and managed  in accordance with the number of accessible rooms provided in the hotel


Resolved (by 13 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission subject to the updated conditions, and changes referenced above and subject to S106 and/or S278 agreement in accordance with officer recommendation. Any further changes to conditions, including additional condition to remove PD change of use rights from hotel, to be agreed under delegated powers.


S/2403/FL - Land adjacent to Cambridge North Station, Milton Avenue (Office) pdf icon PDF 2 MB


Councillor Turner left before the beginning of this item.


The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a building comprising of an office B1 (a) floor space and ancillary ground floor retail (A1/A3) floor space, associated landscaping and public realm improvements and a 125 space car park.


The Committee noted the amendment presented in the amendment sheet.


The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Matthew Danish, Cambridge Cycling Campaign. The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Raised concern over the destruction of the section of Cycle Way between Milton and Cambridge North Station.

  ii.  The cycle route was likely to become busier over time, therefore it needed to be segregated in order to avoid potential collisions between cycles and pedestrians.

  iii.  30 objections had been submitted to this application.


Mike Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.


The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

  i.  The access doors to the building lead directly onto an existing cycle path which caused danger to both the pedestrians exiting the building and cyclists using the cycle path.

  ii.  Demand and use for the cycle path would only increase as the Cambridge North Station became more popular which would heighten the risk of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.

  iii.  Raised concern that the cycle route alignment which had previously been approved was now under threat.

  iv.  No Area Action Plan was in place for the wider site so the Committee had to consider what vision they had for the area and how they would like to see it develop for the future.

  v.  The new cycle route proposed by the applicant introduced inconveniences such as lengthening the existing route, right angles and crossing the Bus Way. The impact would see cyclists taking an easier/more direct option of crossing the main square which would be occupied by pedestrians; this increased the risk of conflict and collision.

  vi.  The proposals breached planning policy, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Local Development Framework Policy TR4 by providing inadequate space for both pedestrian and cyclist use on the path. The proposal also breached guidance in the Local Transport Plan which required the Cycle Way and Chisholm Trail to have a good design with clearly defined areas for use.

 vii.  National standards of dual use paths also advocated segregation if the paths were likely to be busy.

viii.  Highlighted that the area already had a thriving cycling and walking community, this application went against this ethos.

  ix.  Suggested that setting the development back and changing its footprint would allow more space to maintain the cycle route and safer access to the building.

  x.  Referred to the tree and landscaping proposals on page 156 of the agenda, asserted how a planter at the entrance of the office would block the view to both cyclists and pedestrians further.

  xi.  Highlighted the concern the Lead Flood Authority had expressed regarding drainage of the site.


In response to Members’ questions the Planning Team Leader and Senior Planning Officer said the following:

  i.  Referred to the cycle path and stated that the current route which crosses the busway down to Moss Bank would have to change regardless of this application. Assured that there would be options for routes in all directions.

  ii.  The cycle path was used by people destined for Cambridge North Station and those using it as a through route along the Chisholm Trail. Installing a segregated section in front of the office would not mean the remainder of the route would be segregated as well. 

  iii.  Highlighted that Officers proposed a condition to prevent tables and chairs being placed outside the office building so as not to obstruct the path further.

  iv.  Confirmed that the Lead Flood Authority were content with the drainage proposals.


The Lead Highways Development Manager said the following:

  i.  Stated that there were limits to the advice he could give because the land was owned by Network Rail and was not public highways.

  ii.  Highlighted that the development was constrained because of the land available to access the station.

  iii.  As demand for the station increased the path would inevitably get busier so conflict between users was likely to increase.

  iv.  Commented that dual use of the cycle path between cycles and pedestrians could work effectively if user behaviour changed.


Principal Transport Officer said the following:

  i.  Had looked at the Transport Assessment and had considered alternative options.

  ii.  Travel Plan Plus (TP+) designed bespoke measures for transport plans to try and make the best use of available space.



The committee were minded not to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application and to refuse the application. On the basis of the poor design of the cycle route adjacent to the office building and lack of set back of the office building and its impact in terms of pedestrian and cyclist conflicts.  The committee adjourned at 13:10 to consider the appropriate text necessary to express the reason for refusing the application



The committee reconvened at 13:30



The Committee:


Resolved (by 13 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:


The section of the proposed cycle route directly adjacent to the office building, by reason of its proximity to the building, relative to the lack of set back of the building and insufficient curtilage for the ground floor retail units, and its design, including inadequate width, would fail to provide an acceptable layout and would therefore result in unacceptable conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, contrary to Policy TR4 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Development Control Development Plan Document July 2007.