Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Stobart (Councillor Garvie attended as an alternate) and Councillor Baigent for whom no alternate attended.

Councillor Hawkins and Councillor Bradnam provided apologies for lateness.

As the JDCC Chair (Councillor S Smith) was to recuse himself from item 25/17/JDCC and the Vice-Chair (Councillor Bradnam) was not present at the beginning of the meeting a Chair and Vice Chair was elected for the consideration of item 25/17/JDCC.

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded Councillor Thornburrow to preside as Chair for item 25/17/JDCC. Committee, then upon the proposal of Councillor Fane seconded by Councillor R. Williams, approved that Councillor Cahn should act as Vice Chair. The Councillor elections to these roles (required for the consideration of item 25/17/JDCC only) was agreed nem con.

The minutes of the meetings held on 26 February 2025 and 19 March 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair, Cllr Simon Smith handed proceedings over to Cllr Thornborrow who took the Chair for item 25/17/JDCC. Cllr Smith moved to the Ward Member’s seating in the Chamber.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

The application sought approval for Outline application for the demolition of all site buildings and structures other than Chapter House and erection of buildings for a laboratory/office campus (Class E (g(i)) and (g(ii))) and associated facilities, cafe (class E(b)), access, car and cycle parking, revised access, car and cycle parking and refuse storage for the retained Chapter House with some matters reserved except for access, layout and scale.

The Principal Planner verbally updated their report with the following:

•    Having read the report, the applicant would like the following to be matters confirmed/clarified: 

Para 4.4

That the amendments include the stepping back of the upper storeys to Blocks B, C and D to address comments provided by residents of Howes Place.

Para 8.2 – Second bullet point

This should include the comment from residents of Howes Place that the proposed reduction in scale and massing of Block A is welcomed when compared to the consented apart hotel building.

Para 8.4

This should include reference to support from Cambridge Past, Present and Future who note “support for this revised application for the redevelopment of the site in that it proposes buildings which are lower and provide more space to adjacent neighbours than the extant permission” 

The comment was submitted by Cambridge Past Present and Future on 27 Dec 2023 and is the last comment on page 2 of the planning file.

Para 13.24

We would suggest that it could be noted here that the separation distance between Building D and the northern boundary has increased on average 1.7m further from the boundary compared with the extant consent.  These dimensions can be checked against the submitted PDF plans.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from residents of Howes Place.

Paul Harney (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee Manager read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Payne (Castle Ward Councillor) expressing support for the redevelopment of the NIAB site but strongly supported the proposed conditions put forward by the residents of Howes Place.

Councillor S Smith (Castle Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents of Howes Place and Darwin Green. 

The Committee were informed the applicant had chosen not to enter into a planning performance agreement with the Council nor made a pre- application presentation to the Committee. This had provided limited opportunities for Officers and the Committee to promote positive planning with the applicant, which would have led to better development. It was in this context that Councillor S Smith addressed positive planning proposals for the Committee’s consideration if minded to approve the application. 

Following Members questions and debate Councillor Hawkins proposed, second by Councillor R Williams to defer the application due to the ambiguity of the proposal outlined in the submission.

Cognisant of the Members’ debate and the deferral proposal, the Strategic Sites Manager offered the following reasons to defer the application:

i.          to explore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/17/JDCC

Description: Eddington Phase 2 - Outline application for a mixed-use development including residential, student, senior living, commercial and academic floorspaces, alongside supporting retail and community uses. Associated infrastructure and engineering works including accesses, roads, and open space.

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied and comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the Council as the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

i.               Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the shared gardens shown in the presentation if residents neglected them?

ii.        What would be the shade implications on the shared gardens from the surrounding housing and apartments?

iii.       What was the intention for traffic management - was there an intention to exclude traffic on site and where would this exclusion operate?

iv.       Was it correct that the taller massing was at the highest point of the site?

v.        Could there be more explanation in terms of the ‘public ownership’ regarding the apartments on Cartright Avenue as referenced in the presentation?

vi.       Parking per dwelling had been reduced from 1.1 (ratio for Phase one) to 0.43, why was this so and what evidence had this reduction been based upon. Was this for the same type of housing that was on Phase one or was this different? 

vii.      What provision had been made for visitor parking?

viii.     Was there plans to improve the access from the Madingley park and ride site to Eddington?

ix.       Would there be plans for a car club on site and specific parking allocated to it?

x.        Could the reasoning for the reduction of landscaping from thirty metres to twenty meters between buildings be explained.

xi.       Could a breakdown of affordable housing be provided?

xii.      Would co-operative housing type structures be considered?

xiii.     Suggested that proactive advertising should be used to encourage residents outside of Eddington to access and use the site?

xiv.     Had been informed that 95% of apartments would be four to six storeys, what was the makeup of the remaining 5% percent?

xv.      Had the walking trails been planned ‘in plan’ or how residents would walk round the site. It was important the trails worked visually when people walked around and not just as an architect would plan it on paper.

xvi.     Would there be planning for irrigation on site to help maintain the greenery and gardens?

xvii.    Questioned if Dutch style cycle ways were suitable; there was a different culture in Holland to cycling as there was in the UK.

xviii.   Would be beneficial to see some elevational treatments in the design which dealt with overheating, particularly for single aspect homes?

xix.     It was also beneficial to consider the use of materials and other issues which could make a property cold.  Important to ensure that the temperatures could be controlled?

xx.      How close was the application to using a water recycling system on site?

xxi.     Would it be possible to use the mothballed carpark on Phase one should there be a demand?

xxii.    Allotments on Phase one had still not been delivered, when would this be completed?

xxiii.   Was the application within the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/18/JDCC

Description: Refurbish and extend Robinson House to include an event space, flexible workspace, a café, event spaces and lab-hotel. A glazed corridor will link the existing building to a proposed modular extension containing the lab space, rooftop amenity space and potential urban farm. Car parking reduced to 7 spaces. Cycle parking and gas storage are proposed.

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

i.         Why was the life of the building fifteen years, and would there be a plan for the building after this time?

ii.         What was the definition of an ‘urban farm’ referenced in the presentation?

iii.        Would recommend the inclusion of a changing place toilet, or at the least, a disabled accessible toilet.

iv.        Would encourage providing more than two spaces for cargo bike parking.

v.        Would have liked to have seen views of the module height in the surrounding areas.

vi.        How many storey’s high would the lab be?

vii.       Would recommend future proofing and allowing flexibility of the use, such as Cambridge University’s Hub space in West Cambridge, to allow the expansion of public amenity space if required?

viii.      Important to look at how people would be living and travelling in fifteen years’ time.

ix.        There were a significant number of electric bike users who didn’t have anywhere to charge them other than in small space such as corridors at home. It would be useful if employers could ensure somewhere safe for electric bikes to charge.

x.        In the presentation a reference was made to a ‘lab hotel’, what was this?

xi.        Noted that the Master Plan would be brought to Committee as a forthcoming briefing topic.

xii.       Should consider what the innovate water containers would look like from the road and would they be considered exemplar of their type.

xiii.      As the application was on the northern boundary of the shared cycling and pedestrian path to and from Cambridge North Station, would recommend considering the navigation through the business park to the premises.

xiv.      Should consider the potential risk of pedestrians and cyclists on the western access of the building; access was on a slope, so safety needed to be thought about.

xv.       Cycle parking had been proposed next to the shared use cycle parking on Milton Road, it was important to think about the possible conflict between cycles stopping, parking and pedestrian access.

xvi.      Should consider parking for electric bikes and scooters.

xvii.     It was important to think about the parking when hosting events on site