A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Committee Manager


No. Item




No apologies were received.


Declarations of Interest





Councillor Baigent


Personal: member of Camcyle

Councillor Bradnam


District Councillor for part of North East Cambridge. Discretion unfettered.



Minutes pdf icon PDF 239 KB


Minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2021 were approved as correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments.

  i.  p4 of the agenda pack: Items 1, 2 & 3 - appropriate to be written in the past tense.

  ii.  p6 (vii): Misspelling of availability

  iii.  p7 (xv): Change flume to flue.

  iv.  P10 (v): Sought clarification on this sentence. The Chair advised this was what he said at the last meeting and would stay in the minutes as recorded.


Committee Manager Note: Items 1, 2 & 3 are copied from the Amendment Sheet for information at the start of the minutes and copied as standard


North East Cambridge Area - Interim Transport Approach pdf icon PDF 654 KB


The Committee received a report to note concerning the County Council Transport Team’s intended approach to the assessment and consideration of traffic and transport impacts associated with proposed development within the North East Cambridge (NEC) Area Action Plan (AAP).


A report was presented by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Transport Assessment Team Manager and Principal Transport Officer, Transport Assessment Team.


In response to Member’s questions on trip budget enforcement the Transport Assessment Manager and Principal Transport Officer said the following:

  i.  Acknowledged the need for significantly improved transport facilities for the NEC area prior to the completion of the development set out in the NEC AAP.

  ii.  Developments would need to demonstrate how they could meet the objectives set out in the County’s Transport Position Statement.

  iii.  Long term, further transport infrastructure would be required to realise the sustainability of the area. Developments would be broken down and a monitor and manage approach taken. 

  iv.  The trip budget would be in place and monitoring would begin at the start of a development.

  v.  If it were noted that trips had started to increase, this would be brought to the attention of the developer and they would be advised that the trend needed to reduce. Additional measures could be introduced, and the travel plan intensified to reverse a possible breach.

  vi.  If the trip budget was irreversibly breached, then subsequent phases may be held back.

 vii.   Large master plan areas would be broken down into smaller parcels. If a developer were failing to perform against the trip budget, they would not be allowed to continue beyond the parcel being developed.

viii.  Monitoring information such as the ability to track vehicles through automatic number plate recognition and the location of cameras on the entry and exit points of the development would be possible. 

  ix.  The Alconbury Weald development was an example of the monitor and manage approach which is a development of 5,000 dwellings broken down into smaller phases. Phase 1 comprising approximately 800 houses. As the subsequent phase(s) of the development were looked at the data would be based on the travel habits established on site so there was a much more educated and refined view towards Phase 2.

  x.  There had been instances at Alconbury Weald where a specific junction would be monitored in future. If development trips had gone over a trigger point pre-agreed mitigation would be required and had been delivered.

  xi.  Lessons had been learnt on the monitor and manage approach from developments such as Alconbury Weald. The monitoring technology had improved which allowed a greater understanding of when and why the trip patterns were emerging. This has led to a more effective response from officers.

 xii.  The developers in the area were working to produce a shared transport strategy for the area, with support from the local authority officers. Advised any recommendation provided by the Highways Authority to the planning authority would have considered the merits of the application about the Transport Position Statement. 


The Assistant Director  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/17/JDCC


Marleigh Phase 2


The Committee received a presentation on the Marleigh Phase 2 development.


Members raised 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.  Voiced concern that play equipment had been placed close to the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS).

  ii.  Enquired what source of data was being used for the SuDs. The data should be the most up to date. One Member requested a meeting with the developers and officers to discuss this matter further.

  iii.  Asked if the SuDs were all intended as open swale or if there were to be underground tanks.

  iv.  Expressed unease at the use of valley gutters between the houses. These could become blocked with leaves and overflow with heavy rain. It was possible heavy snow could cause these to collapse and asked if these issues had been addressed.

  v.  Stated it was a design responsibility to ensure that maintenance could be undertaken on valley gutters by the occupier.

  vi.  Described the buildings as ‘boxy’, all the same and not inspiring.

 vii.  Questioned if there were plans for the flat roof buildings, such as solar panels or green roofs.

viii.  Queried if the open spaces were accessible to young people and asked where they would play.

  ix.  Advised that the green spaces between the apartment buildings could be in the shade. This could lead to the space being difficult to maintain and that they could become cold and damp spaces; the higher the buildings the more problematic this could be.

  x.  Challenged the term ‘city’ in the location description as the development was in a more urban area closer to Newmarket Road.

  xi.  Enquired if there was any indoor community space or if this was just in Phase 1; could indoor workspace be considered?

 xii.  Noted in Phase 1 there was a crescent overlooking a green space which offered an architectural feature of interest. Suggested softer solutions rather than 90-degree right angles for Phase 2.



Eddington Lots S1/S2


 The Committee received a presentation on Eddington Lots S1/S2


Members raised 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.  Asked what level of the UK Code of Sustainable Homes would be reached.

  ii.  Would like further information regarding safety in the community.

  iii.  Would like to see fewer cars on site and the design should encourage car sharing.

  iv.  Noted the cohesion for living and leisure but asked if there were any opportunities for working on the development.

  v.  Asked for examples of completed developments that Present Made had been involved with. 

  vi.  Queried how the site would be managed by a company who were not local to the development.

 vii.  Asked what plans were in place to ensure those living on the development would be part of the whole community of Eddington and not a sub-community.

viii.  Questioned what level of affordable housing would be provided.

  ix.  Asked if there was provision for community space between S1/S2.

  x.  Enquired if there was provision for the retirement community.

  xi.  Queried if the trees would grow in certain locations on the development.