Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from County Councillor Harford (County Councillor Wotherspoon was present as alternate) City Councillor Tunnacliffe (City Councillor Porrer was present as alternate) South Cambs District Councillor Bygott (no alternate available) and City Councillor Baigent (no alternate available).

The minutes of the meeting of the 20^th November 2019 were agreed and signed as correct record subject to the following amendments:

Councillor Wilson to be added to the attendance record.

Councillors Sargeant and de Lacey declared personal interests as members of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

Spelling corrections to item 19/50/JDCC paragraph 5, Exiting should read existing and Marley should read Marleigh.

The Committee received Section 73A planning application to continue the development without compliance with conditions 5 (hours) and 7 (noise limit) of planning permission reference C/05004/12/CW to enable 24 hour operation of the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) including maintenance depot.

David Bridgwood (National Planning Manager, Veolia) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

      i.         Sought clarification regarding the maps and visual images provided by the applicant as part of their planning application which appeared to be out of date.

    ii.         Raised concerns regarding noise levels impacting on the new hotel in the area.

   iii.         Requested clarity on the proximity of the nearest domestic dwelling units.

In response to Members’ questions the Joint Interim Assistant Director stated that it was unlikely that there would be any restriction to working hours and noise limits associated with the activities of the nearby bus depot. The depot had been in its current location for some time. The Strategic Sites Manager confirmed that Stagecoach’s current planning permissions were unrestricted.

In response to questions regarding the consultation process, the Assistant Director Delivery, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils confirmed that as the planning service was a shared service, the Planning Policy Team would consider applications such as this as a joint matter. She undertook to develop a consultation protocol for future applications of this nature.

The depot had been in its current location for some time. The Strategic Sites Manager confirmed that Stagecoach’s current planning permissions were unrestricted.

In response to questions regarding the consultation process for the application, the Committee was reminded that Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District’s planning services operate as a shared service thus the Planning Policy Team (as part of the shared service) considers applications such as this one on behalf of both planning authorities. The Assistant Director Delivery however undertook to develop a consultation protocol for future applications of this nature to avoid the possibility of any procedural irregularities in relation to consultation duties/responsibilities for the shared service.

The Joint Interim Assistant Director stated that time limited permissions had been suggested by the Planning Policy Team. An Area Action Plan was under development for the area and a Members’ briefing would be delivered shortly.

The depot had been in its current location for some time. The Strategic Sites Manager confirmed that Stagecoach’s current planning permissions were unrestricted.

In response to questions regarding the consultation process for the application, the Committee was reminded that Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District’s planning services operate as a shared service thus the Planning Policy Team (as part of the shared service) considers applications such as this one on behalf of both planning authorities. The Assistant Director Delivery however undertook to develop a consultation protocol for future applications of this nature to avoid the possibility of any procedural irregularities in relation to consultation duties/responsibilities for the shared service.

The Joint Interim Assistant Director stated that time limited permissions had been suggested by the Planning Policy Team. An Area Action Plan was under development for the area and a Members’ briefing would be delivered shortly.

The Assistant Director Delivery, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils acknowledged that time limited permissions had been suggested by the Planning Policy Team. However, the Area Action Plan was an emerging document, whilst the Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted, so the officer report in her opinion provided a very fair and reasonable approach that Cambridgeshire County Council officers had taken legal advice on. A Members briefing from the policy team would be delivered shortly to help provide the Committee future guidance on this.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to the planning conditions as set out in the Officer’s report.

Withdrawn from agenda.

The Committee received a presentation from Kevin Myers (Director, RHP Architects), Andi Redhead (Associate Director, WSP Transport) and Andrew Cusick (Framework Manager, Morgan Sindall) regarding the Wing Primary School.

The presentation gave an update on improvements to the design of the school since it was last considered by this committee.

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.      Would there be a direct route to the School from the Park and Ride Site?

2.      Where would the drop off point be for school buses?

3.      Would delivery vehicles have a safe turning area within the Site, or would they be forced to reverse out of the site?

4.      Where would mini buses be able to park on Site?

5.      Can a cross section be provided to demonstrate the ventilation within the school building?

6.      Asked for more details on the roof window locations.

7.      Would window shading be available to cool the school hall?

8.      Can longer term thermal modelling be produced to help inform the climate change concerns?

9.      Would cyclists have a dedicated access route into the school?

10.  Regarding shared pedestrian access to and egress from to the school. Would this be safe?

11.  Who would be using the upper floor classrooms and would there be access for wheelchair users?

12.  Questioned the window aspects and orientations? How has this been considered from a solar gain perspective?

13.  The building was expected to be BREEAM excellent. Why not deliver an aspirational design and aim for BREEAM outstanding?

14.  Stated that changes to access points did not address the Committee’s previous concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicle conflict points. Not clear what type of crossing being proposed and level of detail missing from the presentation to help Members consider this point.

15.  Why has gas heating been included when the use of gas was being phased out?

16.  Had the use of grey water for toilets been considered?

The Committee received a presentation from David Fletcher (Director – National Development and Planning, Strutt and Parker), Tim Watkins (Project Manager, GCP) and Jo Morrison (Landscape Architect, Mott MacDonald) regarding the South West Travel Hub at Junction11 of the M11.

The presentation gave an update on the project and the design revisions.

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.    Was this a travel hub or an additional car park?

2.    Unclear how coach, buses and cycle spaces have been designed into the proposal?

3.    Would there be a potential to increase capacity later should there be a need?

4.    Requested clarity on the number of cycle spaces.

5.    Questioned how many parking bays included vehicle charging points.

6.    Asked if there was going to be a building on the site?

7.    Suggested that toilet facilities could ease the pressure in the city centre facilities if the site was used by day visitor coaches.

8.    The proposed cycle route feeds into a narrow cycle path into the city and would be problematic.

9.    Had the numbers of people likely to use this car park to access the Country Park been considered?

10.                  Where would the cycle route out of the site and away from Cambridge go?

11.                  Why there were no improvements to the M11 crossing points as part of this scheme, as the cycle route shown appears to be a dog leg that may discourage users because of the additional mileage?

12.                  Would the Guided Bus access the site?

13.                  Similar layout had not proved popular elsewhere as they were uneconomic for bus companies.

14.                  Would there be a bus stand to allow drivers to take breaks without blocking the through route?

15.                  Have coach visitor numbers been modelled?

16.                  Would there be a connection to the proposed South Rail Station and had this been modelled into the transport assessment and need for the facility?

17.                  Would the use of Trumpington Park and Ride coach spaces be encouraged?

18.                  Would charging points for electric taxis be provided?

19.                  More details regarding the potential future expansion options were needed.

20.                  Plans needed to be clearer regarding the role of coach parking. Which coaches was it expected to serve?