Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > 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 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2021 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||
127-136 Cambridge Science Park PDF 514 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission for the erection of a building for Office / Research &
Development use following demolition of existing buildings, and associated
infrastructure and works. The Committee noted the amended conditions detailed in
the Amendment Sheet. The Interim Management Support Officer also tabled an
amendment to condition 9, with additional wording underlined: ‘Prior to first occupation of the building a Travel Plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Travel Plan shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of
the private motor vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative
sustainable travel arrangements such as public transport, car sharing, cycling
and walking. The Travel Plan shall include membership to the Cambridge
Science Park Travel Plan Plus. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as
approved upon the occupation of the development and monitored in accordance
with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority’. Matt
Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. In
response to Members’ questions the Transport Assessment Manager and Transport
Officer, Assistant Director (Delivery), Interim Management Support Officer said
the following:
i.
The
Applicants had sought to meet the goals and objectives of the County Council’s
Transport Position Statement and they felt that the applicants did meet the
objectives. The increase in trips on the highway network by this development
were minimal, therefore no trip budget approach was required. The mode share
for car drivers proposed had been achieved on the Addenbrooke’s site and is
achievable on the Cambridge Science Park (CSP).
ii.
The people
who worked at the CSP were projected to benefit from the Chisholm Trail, the
improvements to Milton Road and the enhanced public transport system in
Cambridge which were being delivered by the Greater Cambridge Partnership
(GCP).
iii.
The
Applicant would be making a financial contribution to these strategic
infrastructure projects. iv.
The
Applicant was not increasing the number of car parking spaces on the site which
was in accordance with the County Council’s Transport Position Statement.
v.
The £5000
contribution referred to for parking controls could be used by the County
Council to install yellow lines (either single or double yellow lines) in
surrounding residential areas to curb unwanted parking if the need arose. vi.
Explained
that there were two types of parking enforcement; either controlled parking
zones (CPZs), which were also known as residents parking zones or double yellow
lines. The GCP had a programme for developing CPZs. The £5000 contribution
would only be put towards the cost of a traffic regulation order to permit the
installation of double yellow lines. This would not allow for the introduction
of controlled parking zones, therefore there would be no disadvantageous impact
on residents who were not able to afford the cost of a resident parking permit
within a CPZ. vii. The owners of the CSP currently operates a shuttle bus for occupiers of the CSP to Cambridge North train ... view the full minutes text for item 21/23/JDCC |
||||||||||
Planning Advisory Service Review of Joint Development Control Committee PDF 385 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a
presentation from the Assistant Director (Delivery). regarding the Planning
Advisory Service (PAS) review of the Joint Development Control Committee
(JDCC). In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director (Delivery) said the
following:
The
Committee resolved unanimously to: i) Note the content and recommendations set out in the Planning
Advisory Service report. ii) Endorse the implementation of Recommendations R4, R5 and R8 of
the Planning Advisory Service Review report with respect to the Joint
Development Control Committee as highlighted in paragraph 3.5 of the committee
report. |
||||||||||
Darwin Green 1 BDW2 revised proposals Minutes: The Committee received a
presentation from BDW Cambridgeshire on revised
Darwin Green BDW2 proposals. Members raised comments/questions as
listed below. Answers and comments were supplied, 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. 1. Was
pleased to note that the Committee’s concerns had been taken on board. Noted
that 87% of the units were proposed to be National Described Space Standards
(NDSS) compliant but queried why the remaining 13% were not NDSS compliant. 2. Queried
the proposed clustering of the affordable housing units on the revised drawings
towards the eastern side of the site and noted there was only one market
dwelling which was surrounded by affordable housing. 3. Queried
why the application was proposed to be split into two applications. 4. Felt the
affordable housing was inappropriately clustered. 5. Asked if
there was going to be a pocket park. 6. Noted the Developer
stated that the proposed scheme was going to be 87% policy compliant which meant
that the scheme was still not fully compliant with NDSS. 7. Queried
how many units would be below NDSS. 8. Noted that
it looked like the kitchen on the ground floor had been extended just to meet
NDSS. |
||||||||||
Darwin Green 1 BDW5 and BDW6 proposal Minutes: The Committee received a
presentation from representatives on behalf of BDW Eastern Counties and Tate Hindle on Darwin Green parcels BDW5 and 6. Members raised comments/questions as
listed below. Answers and comments were supplied, 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. 1. Queried
accessibility and how the Developer would make sure that residents did not
resort to using their cars to drive to places. 2. Asked what
EV charging provision there would be and how secure it would be. 3. Noted that
90% of the units would be built to National Described Space Standards, which
meant that some of the units would not be policy compliant. 4. Thought
that the pocket park looked like a front garden. 5. Thought
that the permeability of the site enabled new residents to be able to access
other facilities for example Brierley Walk.
6. Thought
that the pocket park looked like a wide verge and wanted to see a place for
children to play. Asked if the Developer had considered building fewer houses
on the site so that better public open space provision could be provided. |