Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Small Hall - The Guildhall. View directions
Contact: Martin Whelan Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: The committee received apologies from County Councillor Kenney and County Councillor Orgee. 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: Councillor Price
declared a personal interest as an employee of a college of Cambridge
University. The committee requested legal advice on
whether it was recommended to declare membership of the USS pension scheme. The
Legal Advisor advised the committee that due to the remoteness of the interest
this was not required. Councillor De Lacey indicated that as the local ward councillor for Girton and Chairman of Girton Parish Council he had been in discussions with the applicant, but that he was coming to the meeting with an open mind and had not fettered his discretion. |
|||||||
Minutes To follow Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 11th July 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record of the meeting. |
|||||||
C/11/1114/OUT & S/1886/11 Land between Madingley Road and, Huntingdon Road, CB3 0LH PDF 715 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The committee received applications
C/11/1114/OUT and S/1886/11 (Land between Madingley Road, Huntingdon Road and
the M11, North West Cambridge, CB3 0LH) for consideration. The committee received the amendment sheet
and noted the following updates Update
to published report i.
Air Quality Monitoring (paras 8.460-8.463) Following discussions between Council Air
Quality Officers and the applicant it has been agreed that, given that the main
source of potential air pollutants arising from the development is derived from
vehicular movements and construction activities, in addition to paying a
financial contribution to meet the cost of providing diffusion tubes to monitor
the construction impacts of the development upon air quality, the applicant
will also pay 20% of the cost of operating an existing air quality monitoring
station on Huntingdon Road, to monitor the wider air quality impacts of the
development arising primarily from traffic movements for a period of ten years.
This sum equates to an additional contribution of £17,600, above the sum
already outlined in Appendix K, to be paid over a period of 10 ten years from
the commencement of residential development on site. The percentage
apportionment and trigger for meeting the operating costs of the existing
monitoring station have been derived from the worst case, ‘do minimum’, transport
movements anticipated along Huntingdon Road, as outlined within the Transport
Assessment. ii.
Urban Design and Visual Impact Within the Urban Design and Visual Impact
section the report should note that heights specified are measured from the
ground floor slab (at the principle entrance) to the apex of the roof but
exclude any lightening conductors, weather vanes, rooftop plant,
telecommunications equipment, floodlighting and aerials. The section should note the zone within the
local centre for the energy centre flue (as identified in Parameter Plan 06).
This Parameter Plan allows for a flue of 0.6m diameter, and limits the height
to 42.5m AOD, which is 5 metres above the suggested AOD in that area for
building heights. The Landscape and Visual Impact assessment
for the flue was assessed in the Environmental Statement and while it will
exceed the heights of the buildings in this area (this is a necessity for
environmental reasons), the small diameter means that it will have limited
impact on the wider setting of the site and the city and is considered
acceptable. The detailed location and design will come forward at the reserved
matters stage. Additional
Representations Received A letter from Girton Parish Council has been
received containing the following statement: ‘To affirm the Parish Council’s
concern that it should be involved in the management of open spaces within NW
Cambridge, and to request that the JDCC consults with the parish before any
agreement on open space’. Officer response: A meeting between Girton
Parish Council and officers from both SCDC and the City Council is taking place
on 7 August and outcomes from that meeting will be reported orally to the
Committee. A representation has been received by the
East of England Faith Council (Faiths reference group for NWC development).
They note the Cambridge Horizons Study (Faith in new developments) and have
stated that the optimum provision for community wellbeing for this site would
be • Homes
for faith workers available from the first phase of building, with a minimum
tenure of five years and maximum of seven years to give the stability that is
so important for community formation • At
least 0.5 hectares of free land for a separate multi faith building OR a
community centre sufficiently large to accommodate at least some of the
meeting/worship space needs of the larger faith groups • Land
set aside at market value to meet the needs of minority faiths when they wish
to purchase (it has been estimated, for example, that there will be at least
600 Muslims residing on the site once it is complete). The representation states that four homes
are to be provided for an initial three years on the site and that a community
centre will be able to house faith meeting and worship needs. However their
view is that this falls well short of the level of provision that should be
provided. They would also like to discuss how the
governance/management arrangements for the facility would work. Officer response: The Cambridge Horizons
study is not a formally adopted document and limited weight can be afforded to
it in determining planning applications. The report explains (para 8.194-8.195)
the proposal in terms of faith housing that will be available in perpetuity
(not just an initial 3 years) and will have affordable rent (in line with the
key worker housing). Officers are happy to meet and discuss the
role of the faith groups in the design of the community facility and a meeting
will be set up to discuss this in due course. With regard to the final bullet point, it is
beyond the remit of the planning process to determine/reserve market housing
for any one particular person or group of people, and could not be reasonably
achieved by any granting of planning permission here. Amendments
to Text Para 8.185 should read. EU law does not necessarily outlaw private
electricity supplies. Persons are entitled to own and operate electricity
generation plants and distribution and supply networks without requirement for,
as applicable, a generation, distribution or supply licence provided they fall
within certain exemptions. Supplying
private homes makes it more difficult to come within those exemptions. Para 8.196 and 8.347 of the report should
relate to 50% of residential properties being developed to lifetime homes
standards on the site not 15%. Condition 22 citing 50% is correct. At the start of bullet point 2 of para 8.286
the word ‘pre-school’ should read ‘nursery provision’. Para 8.453 should also reference swimming
pool provision which will be provided either via public access to West
Cambridge, unless this has not been provided within 7 years of 1st occupation
when a fall back commuted sum of £343,000 will be paid. Pre-Committee
Amendments To Recommendation/draft conditions Condition 42: should read ‘Prior to, or
concurrently with, the submission of the first reserved matters application for
residential development, a strategy. Condition 62: the word ‘milestones’ should
be replaced by the words ‘the end of each phase as identified within condition
5’ The committee noted the following oral
updates to the conditions and informatives i.
Condition 42: should read ‘Prior to, or concurrently with,
the submission of the first reserved matters application for residential
development, a strategy… ii.
Condition 62: the word ‘milestones’ should be replaced by
the words ‘the end of each phase as identified within condition 5’ iii.
Condition 63 should read ‘no development shall take place
‘before’ the implementation of a programme of archaeological works… iv.
Condition 59 on page 130 should include the words ‘by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the local planning authority’ within the last
sentence of the condition. v.
And the informative relating to lighting on p138 of the
report should refer to condition 51 Public
Speakers The committee received seven public
speakers. Mr Lachmann Mr Lachmann expressed support for the
general principle of the project, but raised concerns regarding i. The
insufficient size of zone t from a neighbourliness perspective, and requested
that the zone should be larger. ii. The
importance of maintaining the medieval hedgerow and the pre-enclosure field
systems. Mr Lachmann also encouraged the committee to
consider the traffic implications if the proposed improvements to the A14 did
not proceed as planned, and whether a “plan b” should be developed. Mr Hellawell Mr Hellawell raised concerns regarding the
application and the consequential implications for Castle Ward and the rest of
the city. Mr Hellawell also raised the following concerns regarding the
application i. The
proposed scheme would be a “cuckoos egg” in the Castle Ward community. ii. Due
to the location of the site, additional traffic would have to travel through
the city. iii. Should
seek improvements to Madingley junction with M11 to create four-way junction. iv. Should
also create link through NIAB development. Ms Mullikan Ms Mullikan expressed support for the
application, but encouraged the university and other parties to form a joint
committee to manage the conservation and biodiversity aspects of the site. Ms Simmons Ms Simmons spoke on behalf of the Faith
Reference Group for the North West Cambridge Group. Ms Simmons explained that
the Faith Reference Group was generally in favour of the application; however
were seeking improvements to the faith provision on the site. Ms Simmons made the following suggestions
for improving the faith provision i. Homes
for faith workers available from the first phase of building, with a minimum
tenure of five years and maximum of seven years to give the stability during
the initial phase of community formation. ii. At
least 0.5 hectares of free land for a separate multi faith building OR a
community centre sufficiently large to accommodate at least some of the
meeting/worship space needs of the larger faith groups iii.
Land set aside at market value to meet the needs of minority
faiths when they wish to purchase (it has been estimated, for example, that
there will be at least 600 Muslims residing on the site once it is complete). Mrs Lawson Mrs Lawson spoke in objection to the
application and raised concerns regarding i. Lack
of secondary education provision ii.
Insufficient
transport infrastructure to support the impact of the development iii.
Lack of
starter homes for young people iv. The
delivery of infrastructure by the developers Jeremy Sanders (Pro Vice Chancellor –
Cambridge University) and the University’s agent (Heather Topel from Aecom) Jeremy Sanders and the University’s agent
spoke in support of the application, and responded to the concerns raised by
the public speakers. In response to a member question, the
principal planning officer clarified the size of zone T, and confirmed that
this size and location would be reflected on the Building Heights Parameter
Plan. Consideration
of the application In accordance with section 14 (Attendance at
the Committee by other members of the Councils) of the Joint Development
Control Committee standing orders the Chair welcomed the following Ward
Councillors to take part in the debate on the application.
The Chair invited the committee to consider
each section of the report in turn. Introduction Members of the committee made the following
comments on the introduction section of the committee report. i. Support
was expressed for the suggestion raised by one of the public speakers for the
creation of a specific committee to proactively manage conservation,
bio-diversity and ecology on the site. The Principal Planner (New
Neighbourhoods) explained that a conservation committee would be difficult to
impose through the planning process, but that officers would encourage the
university to actively engage with stakeholders regarding conservation,
bio-diversity and ecology and particularly in relation to discharge of relevant
conditions.. ii. Clarification
was requested on the meaning of 3 arm and 4 arm junctions. The Principal
Planner (New Neighbourhoods) explained that the “arm” referred to the number of
roads entering the junction. iii. It
was said that the provision of 2000 bed spaces for students would have no
effect on the rental prices in Cambridge, and would be restricted to students.
The Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) reminded the committee that the 2000
bed spaces for students, were to provide collegiate bedspaces and would not be
for general rent, different to the market and key work provision that would
also be provided through the scheme. Urban Design Councillor Hipkin spoke in his capacity as
Ward Councillor for Castle and welcomed the following aspects i. The
design and provision of green space ii. The
provision of a high quality food store iii. The
proposed cycleway provision iv.
The retention of historic features such as the horse
chestnut avenue v. The
engagement strategy of the university at all stages of the process. The
applicant was specifically congratulated Councillor Bygott spoke in his capacity as
Ward Councillor for Girton and expressed support for the comments made by
Councillor Hipkin. The following additional comments were made i. The
design needed to maintain the distinction between Girton and the rest of the
city. ii. Concern
was expressed about the verge provision. iii. Noted
that some prospective residents would welcome gardens longer than the proposed
20 metres, where they back onto Storeys Way. Councillor Brooks-Gordon spoke in her
capacity as County Councillor for Castle Division and made the following
comments on the application. i. The
modifications to the application were welcomed, as was the facilitation of the
university in developing the application. Concerns were raised regarding the following
aspects of the application i. Pressure
on school places ii. The
perceived over-provision of space for the food store, and the need to encourage
the operator to consider alternative management arrangements. iii. The
lack of a direct public transport service to the station. iv. The
hours of work during the construction phase. It was suggested that work was
restricted to 9 am to 5pm v.
Lack of confidence in the proposed parking management
arrangements vi. The
need to carefully manage lorry movements on and around the site The Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods)
welcomed the comments, however explained that it was important to differentiate
between hours of work during construction and hours of operation of facilities
once completed. Members of the committee made the following
comments on the urban design section of the committee report. i. The
retention of existing features such as the horse chestnut avenue was welcomed,
but officers were asked regarding the retention of historic features across the
site. The Senior Planning Officer (New Communities) advised that the applicant
was proposing to retain historic features such as the central oak, avenue of
trees, woodland areas and SSSI, and integrate them within the proposed scheme. Transport Councillor Bygott spoke in his capacity as
Ward Councillor for Girton and made the following comments i. Concern
was expressed that if traffic calming was introduced in already congested
areas, that congestion would be made worse. Clarification was requested on the
proposed traffic calming for Huntingdon Road. The Principal Planner (New
Neighbourhoods) explained that the details of the proposed work were not
defined at this stage but that due to the size of the proposed financial
allocation (£10,000), the work was likely to be limited to movement of signage
and road markings. Councillor Hipkin spoke in his capacity as
Ward Councillor for Castle and questioned why consideration hadn’t been given
to enabling easy access to the park and ride site from the north, and what
mechanisms were in place to discourage the site being used as a “cut through”.
The Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) summarised the travel management
policy for the site. Members of the committee made the following
comments on the transport section of the committee report. i. The
reliability of the modelling was questioned particularly the implication that
traffic in certain areas would reduce. The County Council Transport Assessment
Manager advised that the modelling had been produced using agreed methodology,
which took into account the proposed mitigation measures. ii. The
possibility of considering the extension of existing services such as the Citi
6 to serve the development was suggested. iii. Possible
adverse impact to young people due to increased difficulties in Huntingdon Road
following the development was highlighted. iv. Clarification
was sought on whether all roads on the site would be constructed to adoptable
standard. The Senior Planning Officer (New Communities) explained that a two
stage adoption strategy was planned with the routes connecting Huntingdon Road
and Madingley Road adopted at the earliest stage. The committee were advised
that the applicant was proposing to develop certain roads to a standard
required for County Council adoption albeit with some elements that currently
wouldn’t be adopted, and that the applicant would retain maintenance
responsibilities. v. The
suggestion that traffic flows would decrease was questioned as it was indicated
that certain flows in the appendix N of the report appeared to suggest an
increase in flows would occur. Clarification was also requested on the
mechanisms and systems available to manage problems in real time if unexpected
consequences arose as a consequence of the development. The Transport
Assessment Manager acknowledged that flows in the overall model area would
increase, but that certain local roads, because of the change in travel
patterns would decrease. The committee were advised that the traffic flows
would be monitored as part of the travel plan, which included mitigation
measures including major capital infrastructure to be funded by applicant if
the targets were not met. The Head of Planning Services explained that the
modelling had been developed based on the best information available and had
been endorsed by the Highways Agency. vi. A
requested was made for a condition to start monitoring immediately on all major
surrounding roads so that the effect of the development could be accurately
measured. The County Transport Assessment Manager cautioned against this
approach due to the dynamic nature of traffic flows, and the difficulty of
disaggregating over reasons for changes in traffic flows. Officers confirmed
that monitoring would form part of the travel plan conditions, therefore a
separate condition was not required. vii. Reservations
were expressed about the number of traffic light controlled junctions on
effectively a rural road, and the effect that this would have on the character
of the area particularly if they were similar to the NIAB junction. The Principal
Planner (New Neighbourhoods) explained that the NIAB junction was a different
scenario due to the design requirements, and that the proposed junctions had
greater flexibility in design and scope for landscaping to soften the impact. viii. Concern
was expressed about the perceived predominance of car user against over users
of the road. The Principal Highway Engineer advised that the SCOOT and MOVA
system could be configured to maximise the priority for different road users.
County Council Officers were asked what the proposed priorities would be on the
crossing. The committee were advised that the County Council was responsible
for ensuring the most efficient management of the network. ix. Further
information was requested on the provision for car club vehicles. The Principal
Planner (New Neighbourhoods) confirmed that initially 12 spaces would be
provided across the site. x. Concern
was expressed about the proposal to introduce a service charge to cover the
cost of maintaining the highways which would not be adopted by the County
Council. xi. It
was noted that the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan strongly discouraged
the use of the connecting roads for private car travel, and it was strongly
emphasised that this should not be diluted through the planning process. The
Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) explained that the connecting routes
were designed to be low speed, which discouraged “cut through” traffic. The
Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) also explained that the 20 mph limit
would be implemented, and has been shown to work elsewhere, based on evidence
from data collected for the Ashford Ring Road. xii. Disappointment
was expressed about the lack of detailed response to the issues raised by the
Cambridge Cycling Campaign and the City Council Cycling and Walking Officer.
The Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) acknowledged the concerns raised,
however explained that in respect of assessing junction design the report
needed to consider all material considerations with regards to the application
and not just from one view point. xiii. Support
was for the prompt planting of trees following the construction of the
junctions. The Senior Planner (New Communities) explained that the although
details have not been submitted at this stage, the applicant has indicated a
desireto plant semi mature trees. The timing of landscaping will be secured by
condition. xiv. In
response to questions, the Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) explained the
junction and traffic management strategy. Members were re-assured that the
junction upgrades were intended to be implemented at the earliest possible
practical change. xv. It
was highlighted that policy NW13 could not be used to support the use of the
routes connecting Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road for car travel. Affordable Housing Members of the committee made the following
comments on the affordable housing section of the committee report. i. It
was highlighted that housing was a crucial part of the project and the reason
for the site being removed from the green belt. It was noted that it was hoped
that a site would be identified for specialist housing to support people who
were able to be in employment but required additional support to live
independently. ii. Whilst
it was agreed that the housing elements of the scheme had been agreed following
a long period of consultation which was open and transparent, people may still
be confused why the allocation policy had been agree in the form that it had
been. iii. Members highlighted the importance of
monitoring going forward, and the Head of Strategic Housing re-assured members
that a mechanism is in place through the S106 agreement for this to happen. Community Development and Open Space Councillor Bygott spoke in his capacity as
Ward Councillor for Girton and explained that he was keen to ensure that
facilities were available on a free and unrestricted basis. Clarification was
requested on whether South Cambridgeshire District Council would receive a
share of the S106 allocation in the event of the swimming pool not being
developed within the agreed time period. The New Neighbourhoods Manager
explained that the details of the fall back arrangements had not yet been
agreed, but would be subject to agreement of the two district councils. Members of the committee made the following
comments on the community development section of the committee report. i. Clarification
was requested on the proposed size for the Community Centre. The New
Neighbourhoods Manager confirmed that the minimum size would be 500 sq metres.
The committee noted that it was intended to develop a strategic design brief in
conjunction with all relevant stakeholders for the community centre. ii. The
concerns of Girton Parish Council regarding the management arrangements were
highlighted and the lack of representation for the Parish Council on the
management board. The New Neighbourhoods Manager advised the management
arrangements were not a planning issue
as such and had been subject to consideration and negotiation with the
University over a period of many months, dating abck prior to submission of the
outline application. . It was noted that the Parish Council had only recently
been informed of the joint venture proposals. It was noted that there would still
be a requirement for the joint venture parties to coordinate closely with
Girton Parish Council going forwards. iii. Significant
concern was raised about the proposed charges to cover open spaces and highways
maintenance, and the risk of creating “fenced” ghettos as a result. The New
Neighbourhoods Manager explained that service charges were not a planning
consideration, and that these arrangements were common in a range of formats
across the country And also for some of the smaller areas of landscaping and
open space within the Southern fringe developments, not being transferred to
the City. It was also noted that the university would be covering the charges
for key workers and any other university occupied buildings. iv. Clarification
was requested on the access arrangements for facilities, and concern that
non-residents would be discouraged. The New Neighbourhoods Manager confirmed
that there would be free and unrestricted access to informal open space and
play parks, in the same way as there would be for example the Trumpington
Meadows country park which was not to be managed by the local authorities. v. It
was noted that a swimming pool had been proposed for a significant period of
time on the West Cambridge site and that there was an identified need, and that
it was hoped that the project could proceed promptly. vi. Officers
were asked for further details about the university charging arrangement and
the exact meaning of recharging at cost. The New Neighbourhoods Manager
explained that this would be raised with the university informally, but that as
the university would be a major contributor due to covering the cost of key
worker accommodation charges and employment uses , imposing a high cost would
not be in the interests of the University.. vii In response to a number of comments
regarding wider community access, the Head of Planning Services explained that
the ownership and management of facilities could not be controlled through the
planning process but that all parties were committed to open access. Local Centre Members of the committee had no comments
regarding the local centre. Education The Assistant Education Officer was asked to
clarify the rationale for a 2.2 form entry primary school and whether in
practical terms this meant a 3 form entry, and concern that this could
undermine the Girton Glebe Primary School. The committee were advised that 2.2
form entry would operate as a 2 form entry but that due to the nature of the
proposed school would have flexibility particularly in key stage 1 to manage
fluctuations in the school population. Sustainable Development Members of the committee made the following
comments on the sustainable development section of the committee report. i. Following
discussion it was agreed that the word “not” was missing from paragraph 8.347. ii. Councillor
Kindersley isappointment expressed
disappointment that the site was not being developed as an exemplar site. The
committee were re-assured by the Senior Sustainability Officer that the site
was the largest sustainable development of this type and that many of the
comparable developments such as Carbon Challenge had been downgraded. Members
noted that before the introduction of feed in tariffs, the proposals for the
use of photo voltaic cells represented 1/3rd of the total cells used
across the whole country. iii. Members
agreed that it was important that the site continue to evolve with the types of
technology used. Flood Risk Members of the committee made the following
comments on the flood risk section of the committee report. i. A
condition requiring the installation of automatic water level meters in the
vicinity of Washpitt Brook was suggested. The Senior Planning Officer (New
Communities) explained that conditions 26, 27 and 30 required the production of
a surface water plan, and that at this stage it would not be appropriate to
specify technologies. ii. Concern
was expressed about the lack of willingness on the part of the Environment
Agency to engage with Girton Parish Council and other stakeholders to put in place
a long term solution to address the flooding issues in the area. The
Sustainable Drainage Engineer confirmed that the Environment Agency was fully
engaged in developing a long term solution. Ecology In response to a question, the Senior
Planning Officer (New Communities) advised that there was no report on the
health of the avenue of horse chestnut trees, but assured members that the
horse chestnut avenue was covered by a tree protection order. Environmental Health Members sought assurances regarding
infrastructure and whether the core infrastructure needs such as sewerage and
electricity substations had been fully considered. The Principal Planner (New
Neighbourhoods) confirmed that the learning from previous developments had been
incorporated into the Standard Design Code condition, so that previous
situations should be avoided. Members expressed reservation at 8.1.4.3
which appeared to underplay the issues associated with poor air quality. The
Senior Planner (New Communities) acknowledged the concern, but explained that
the development would only have a very small negative impact based on
construction and transport activities, which can be monitored and addressed
through the Construction Environment Management Plan and Travel Plan respectively,
with funding secured for monitoring secured through the S106 agreement. Waste Strategy Members expressed support for the proposed
waste management strategy for the site. Archaeology Members of the committee had no comments
regarding the archaeology section of the report. 3rd Party Representations Members of the committee had no comments
regarding the 3rd party representations section of the report. S106 Members of the committee made the following
comments on the S106 section of the committee report. i. Following
a number of comments regarding traffic management, it was agreed that these
could be addressed in the development of the detailed section 106 agreement. ii. Clarification
was requested on why alternative fuel sources had been excluded from the CHP
site. The Principal Planner (New Neighbourhoods) explained that S106 restricted
the technology to those which had been tested through the Environmental
Statement for the site, and that if alternative technologies were proposed a
new permission would be required. Resolved (Unanimously) to approve applications
C/11/1114/OUT and S/1886/11 (Land between Madingley Road, Huntingdon Road and the M11, North West Cambridge, CB3
0LH) subject to conditions and completion of the S106 agreement. The committee
approved the application for the following reasons; This development has been approved subject to conditions and following
the prior completion of a S106 planning obligation because subject to those
requirements, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (SI
2011/1824) as amended and Environmental Statement submitted with the
application dated September 2006, and amended in March with subsequent
additions in June 2012, it is considered to generally conform to the
Development Plan, particularly the following policies: ·
National Planning Guidance: The National Planning Policy
Framework; Outgoing Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements: PPS1, PPG2,
PPS3, PPS9, PPS10, PPS12, PPG13, PPG15, PPG16, PPG17, PPS22, PPS23, PPG24,
PPS25; Circulars: 11/95, 05/05; Community Infrastructure Levy: An overview
(March 2010). ·
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (CPSP) 2003
policies:P6/1, P8/10, P9/2B, P9/2C, P9/8 and P9/9. ·
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003 (Saved
Policies): WLP18 and WLP20. ·
Cambridge Local Plan (CLP): 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/6,
3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/6, 4/9, 4/10, 4/11, 4/13, 4/14,
4/15, 4/16, 5/1, 5/5, 5/9, 5/10, 5/12, 5/13, 5/14, 7/1, 7/2, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4,
8/5, 8/6, 8/7, 8/10, 8/11, 8/16, 8/18, 9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 9/7, 9/8 and 10/1. ·
South Cambridgeshire District Council LDF: ST/1, ST/2, DP/1,
DP/2, DP/3, DP/4, DP/5, DP/6, DP/7, GB/1, GB/2, GB/3, SF/7, NE/4, NE/6, NE/9,
NE/10, NE/11, NE/12, NE/14, NE/15, NE/16, NE/17, CH/2, TR/1, TR/3 ·
Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council
Joint Policy, North West Cambridge Area Action Plan (2009): NW/1, NW/2, NW/3,
NW/4, NW/5, NW/6, NW/7, NW/8, NW/9, NW/10, NW/11, NW/12, NW/13, NW/14, NW/15,
NW/16, NW/17, NW/18, NW/19, NW/20, NW/21, NW/22, NW/23, NW/24, NW/25, NW/26,
NW/27, NW/28, NW/29, NW/30, NW/31 This decision has been made having had regard to all other material
planning considerations and in particular those areas where objection have been
lodged. As such, it is considered that the proposal adequately addresses issues
and objections to all issues highlighted in the officer’s report particularly
with regard to design issues, transport impact, drainage and flooding. Revised plans to the application and EIA documentation were received to
address many objections to the original submission. The final approved plans
are listed on this decision notice. Transport issues have been thoroughly addressed and neither the Highway
Authority nor Highway Agency object to the proposal subject to the conditions
and legal agreement being secured as part of this consent. Despite the
objections raised locally, the scheme is considered to accord with the relevant
local and national policies. Drainage and floodrisk issues have been comprehensively considered with
consultation with the relevant water providers, the Environment Agency and the
Cambridge City Council technical Officers. It is considered that the proposal
conforms to the principles set out within PPS25 and local policies within the
CLP and SCDC LDF. The proposal provides for sufficient open space and recreational
provision, and provides for both primary and secondary education to the satisfaction
of Cambridgeshire County Council. Community facilities have been adequately
provided for and secured through the S106 agreement. The proposal meets
sustainability policies in terms of design and renewable energy, ecology,
biodiversity and waste management and sufficient mitigation is provided for
noise and contamination issues. Air Quality issues can only be adequately
addressed on a strategic level. Notwithstanding that there are slight adverse
impacts on air quality, only a combination of strategic action on transport
issues and full use of sustainable development principles can maintain current
levels of air quality and deliver growth of Cambridge. For these reasons, it is
not considered that it would be reasonable to refuse the application under the
terms of NWCAAP policy NW2. Having considered all the representations it is not considered that any
of those representations made constitute a significant material reason to
refuse permission. Many of the representations have been addressed through revisions
to the application or the proposed conditions as outlined in the Committee
report. These reasons for approval are a summary of the reasons of the reasons
for the grant of planning permission, for further detail on the decision please
see the officer report by visiting either Councils’ Planning Department. The committee also requested that officers follow up the following
issues. ·
Ensure monitoring within the Travel Plan is comprehensive
and that penalties for not hitting targets are set out in the travel plan. ·
Through detailed legal drafting rephrase the word ‘traffic
calming’ within the ‘enhancing the traffic calming scheme along Huntingdon
Road’ payment in appendix K. ·
Officers to discuss the proposed estate management charge
further informally with the University post-Committee. |