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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Cuffley,
de Lacey and Baigent
(Councillor Gawthrope attended as an alternate). |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes To follow Minutes: 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 361 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 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 2 MB Minutes: 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 2 MB Minutes: 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. |