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: Martin Whelan Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from County Councillor Pegram, County Councillor Reynolds attended as an alternate. |
|
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: Cllr Reid a personal interest in item 12/JDCC/35 as a member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2012 were agreed as an accurate record. |
|
Briefing - Sub-regional transport model and application to North West Cambridge development Minutes: WSP, Atkins and Peter Brett Associates
gave a presentation on the “Cambridge Sub-Regional transport model and
application to North West Cambridge”. The
committee received the presentation and made the following comments i. Had
any additional allowance been factored into the model to account for the
greater than normal population changes? The committee were advised that this
had not been factored in, as there was insufficient evidence available on the
impact of greater than normal population changes. ii. Were
journeys from outside of the model area included where they related to leisure
or retail? The committee were advised that they were factored into the model. iii. Clarification
was requested on the status of the Cambridgeshire Housing Strategy. The
committee were advised that the document had been produced in 2003. iv. Did
the model take into account seasonal variation? The committee were advised that
the model did take seasonal variation into account. v. The
possibility of making greater use of coaches, and utilising park and ride sites
for coach passenger transfer was suggested, in order to reduce the number of
vehicles entering the city centre. The comments were noted. vi. Members
suggested the possibility of a more detailed briefing for interested members
and a short summary of the key issues to be produced. The comments were noted. vii. Clarification
was requested of the accuracy of the model and the mechanism by which trip
banking would operate. The committee were advised that the model was developed
based on, and complying with Department of Transport guidelines. The committee
were informed of how it was expected that trip banking would operate. Further
comments were made about the accuracy of modelling, and particularly the
potential for unintended consequences to arise from developments. viii. The
committee asked about the implication of exceeding the 40% ceiling for car
journeys into the site for employment uses. The committee were advised that the
position would be carefully measured, and in the event of a default against the
target the section 106 agreement provided for the developers to have to make
adjustments to its travel plan, with the ultimate sanction physical
improvements to the M11 junction. ix. Clarification
was provided on the basis to which the flow assessments had been made with
regards to specific examples. x. Was
any consideration given to travel between the different university sites? The
committee were advised that it was hoped to reconfigure existing bus services
to serve the site, the railway station and the Addenbrookes site. xi. The
need to ensure that junctions were appropriate, safe and fit for purpose was
agreed. xii. Had
any consideration been given to creating an access from the north to Madlingley
Road Park and Ride? The committee were advised that the option had been
considered and discounted due to a number of issues including ecological
sensitivities north of the existing park and ride site. xiii. In response to
a question, the committee were advised that the modelling had been based on the
2001 census. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The committee received an update on the NIAB1 outline
application and the related SCDC full application for the access to Histon Road
that have been to the Joint Development Control Committee (JDCC) on two
previous occasions. The report assessed
the proposals in the light of recent policy changes, and took the opportunity
to address other matters that have changed since the application was last
considered by the JDCC. The committee received the amendment sheet and noted the
following updates Errata:
Appendix D proposed conditions relating to S/0001/07/F The title of
the Appendix is given as “NIAB 2 proposed conditions”. No application for NIAB2
has been submitted. The conditions
relates to the South Cambridgeshire District Council element of the NIAB1
development. Minor
corrections of wording of conditions 2, 11 and 17 on S/0001/07/F Condition
2 - The development hereby
permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Figure 3.1 Land Use Rev I, Figure 3.3 Landscape Rev G, Figure 3.4 Access Rev H,
Figure 3.6 Urban Design Framework Rev 5, 93681/0S/049/1 Rev K, 93681/OS/049/2
Rev K and 93681/OS/049/3 Rev K. Reason: To
facilitate any future application to the Local Planning Authority under Section
73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition
11 - There should be no collection or deliveries to the site during the
demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 10:00 hours and 14:00
hours on Monday to Saturday and there should be no collections or deliveries on
Sundays or Bank and public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority pursuant to criteria D of the Construction
Environmental Management Plan within condition No. 8. Reason: To protect the
amenity of the adjoining properties and to ensure that the surrounding
transport network is capable of accommodating the construction traffic in
accordance with Policies DP/3 and DP/6 of the adopted Local Development
Framework 2007. Condition 17 - Prior to the commencement
of development, a Detailed Waste Management Plan (DWMP) shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The DWMP shall demonstrate how the
construction accord with the detail of the principles of the Outline Waste
Management Plan. The DWMP shall include
details of: a) The anticipated nature and
volumes of waste. b) Measures to ensure the
maximisation of the reuse of waste. c) Measures to ensure that
effective segregation of waste at source including waste sorting, storage,
recovery and recycling facilities to ensure the maximisation of waste materials
both for use within and outside the site. d) Any other steps to ensure
the minimisation of waste during construction. e) The location and timing
of provision of facilities pursuant to criteria b/c/d. f) Proposed monitoring and
timing of submission of monitoring reports. g) The proposed monitoring
and timing of submission of a Waste Management Closure Report to demonstrate
the effective implementation, management and monitoring of construction waste
during the construction lifetime of the development. Unless otherwise agreed in
writing, thereafter the implementation, management and monitoring of
construction waste shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details
and no individual building subject to a Detailed Waste Management Plan shall be
occupied until the Waste Management Closure Report has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the sustainable management of construction waste and in
accordance with Policies CS28 and CS29 of the Cambridge and Peterborough
Minerials Plan 2011 and the Recycling in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
(RECAP) Waste Design Plan SPD 2012. The committee received a representation from Cllr John
Hipkin (Castle Ward Councillor). Cllr Hipkin raised a number of concerns
regarding the proposals, namely i.
Delays in the finalisation of the section 106 ii.
Uncertainty for residents in the neighbouring areas and
lack of consultation iii.
Proximity to the conservation area In responding to the points that Councillor Hipkin raised,
officers noted that there had been only minor changes to the proposals (and
those changes related mainly to the education and health S106 provisions) since
the applications were previously reported to the JDCC. Officers advised that
the time lag between the three NW Quadrant developments had made it difficult
for the local authorities to finalise S106 provisions, particularly in relation
to education and health and this had contributed largely to the delays in
completing the S106. The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager advised that a
meeting of the North West Forum took place in late winter 2012 to update the
local community on the North West Quadrant developments, including NIAB1. Councillor Reid asked that officers ensure that ward
councillors were kept informed of North West Forum dates/events. Members noted the letter from Bidwells attached to the
amendment sheet and the representations it contained in relation to the
amendments to the energy efficiency conditions. However, they were minded to
agree the amended conditions as worded, notwithstanding this. Resolved (Unanimously) i. That the development is
in conformity with the NPPF subject to conditions listed in Appendix C attached
to this report and the S106 Agreement ii. To put an additional
condition on the outline permission requiring the provision of fire hydrants
(condition 74) iii. That the committee
agrees to the changes in wording of the energy efficiency conditions (condition
28 and 29) iv. To note the amended
County Council strategy for primary school provision v. To note the progress so far on the S106
agreement and that officers will report this back to the JDCC for determination
if there is a future stalling of progress |