Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

·       City Councillors S. Smith and Scutt. Councillor Gawthrope Wood attended as Alternate.

·       South Cambs Councillors Stobart, Cahn and R. Williams.  Councillor Garvie attended as Alternate.

Councillor Bradnam proposed, and Councillor Gawthrope Wood seconded, the nomination of Councillor Thornburrow as Vice Chair for this meeting.

Unanimously resolved that Councillor Thornburrow be Vice Chair for this meeting.

The Committee received a reserved matters application for the approval for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 373 dwellings, access roads, cycle and pedestrian routes, cycle and car parking, landscaping, utilities and associated ancillary structures at Lots S1 and S2, North West Cambridge Development following outline planning permission S/1886/11 as varied by planning permission S/2036/13/VC.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Huntingdon Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          Huntingdon Road and Girton residents had been severely negatively impacted by the Eddington centre development.

     ii.          Referred to comments submitted by residents on the original application, many of them did not receive notice of the revised application.

   iii.          Issues with the Edington development had been going on for circa a decade but the final stage S3 (and associated infrastructure) were the applications which particularly concerned residents, being directly to the rear of their properties. Looking out of the rear windows of some of the properties, one could see the impact of stage 1 – instead of hedges with low lying fields beyond, there were huge mountains of spoil, only grassed after much agitation, which towered over 8 foot hedges. When created, these ‘mountains’ caused disruption plus noise and air pollution, and appeared to be permanent.

   iv.          Requested a construction management plan to mitigate issues such as anti-social work hours or inadvertent spoil mounds.

    v.          Residents’ gardens were now prone to flooding, believed to be a result of the huge mounds created at the back of their properties where water run off rates as well as underground water streams may have resulted in rising water tables. Residents had no opportunity to be made aware or to object to the spoil mounds and believed they should have required detailed planning permission.

   vi.          Queried what was happening to the existing large rubble mountains on the S1/2 site? Expected clear conditions that when removed they were not put anywhere near residents.

 vii.          Noted the encroachment, rather than redesign, since the discovery of the incorrectly assumed boundary lines on the other side of the S1/S2 development. The designers had shifted the whole development 5 metres west, due to the boundary line discovery. This increased the encroachment on and coalescence with Girton properties (especially once S3 is built) - which the North West Action Plan said was to be avoided. The same goes for some of the increase in height of some of the buildings. Expressed concern this gave little or no reassurance that anything in the original masterplan could be relied upon.

viii.          Residents had no confidence in the University or developers being a considerate neighbour - or contractor, given experience to date and so needed clear conditions and monitoring.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          The proposal departed from the Design Code and planning conditions.

     ii.          Expressed concern:

a.    Local Plan criteria was too readily set aside.

b.    Loss of privacy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/30/JDCC

Councillor Carling joined the meeting from the start of this item.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the retention, change of use and extension of Regional Surge Centre 40 (RSC 40) to Provide Orthopaedic Theatres, Orthopaedic Wards, new and realigned vehicular access, and associated infrastructure for a temporary period of 10 years.

Ms Charlton (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Expressed concern that temporary buildings could become permanent. Queried how to prevent this. Temporary buildings were built to different standards compared to permanent ones.

     ii.          Queried how to ensure long term orthopaedic facilities on site.

The Planning Officer (Strategic Sites) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Applicant would not divert a water course and put other parties at flood risk. This was controlled by condition.

     ii.          A green roof was not appropriate for the site.

   iii.          The site provided above the normal level of staff bike parking facilities.

   iv.          There were two main pick up and drop off times allocated for the site. These had arisen from modelling and the Highways Agency Transport Assessment.

Ms Charlton added that parking by the facility was purely for surgery patients. After surgery care would be undertaken by outpatient department, so little patient commuting was expected.

    v.          The building structure complied with most standards. Where it did not, it was just below and off-set elsewhere, so overall acceptable.

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager said Condition 2 controlled materials to be used.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer, subject to the amended wording of condition 18 (fire hydrants) to read as below: 

Prior to the first use and occupation of the building for the purposes hereby approved of the RSC 40 extension a scheme for the provision and location of fire hydrants to serve the development to the standard recommended by the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. The approved scheme shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times. 

Reason: To ensure an adequate water supply is available for emergency use.

The Committee received two s73 applications 22/01966/S73 and 22/01967/S73 to vary conditions 5 (Compliance with Plans), 13 (Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings), 14 (Wheel Chair User Dwellings) and 17 (Sustainability Statement) of S/1231/18/OL (Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved except means of access in respect of junction arrangements onto Coldhams Lane Cherry Hinton Road and Airport Way) for a maximum of 1200 residential dwellings (including retirement living facility (within Use Class C2/C3)) a local center comprising uses within Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/A5/B1a/D1/D2 primary and secondary schools community facilities open spaces allotments landscaping and associated infrastructure) to allow for a variation to the approved parameter plans and to amend condition wording.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a representative of Cambridge Ramblers:

      i.          Requested that public footpath 109 was kept open during construction.

     ii.          Expressed disappointment footpath 109 was closed April to October 2022.

   iii.          Referred to Public Right of Way Officer comments.

   iv.          The variation to the route was not particularly good.

    v.          Suggested the developer should only get planning permission if the footpath was kept open.

Mr Fletcher (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Condition 13 required 100% compliance with M42 except in the coach houses.

     ii.          The County Council and City Council were monitoring demand for a school and would deliver when required.

The Planning Officer (Strategic Sites) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          There was an exclusion zone around the high pressure gas main on site to restrict land usage near it. The gas main went through open spaces and followed along the road.

     ii.          Officers had no updates to the Quality Panel comments but were satisfied with the proposal.

   iii.          The Adoption Plan set out the City Council would adopt most parks/open spaces. Some would be privately owned.

The Principal Sustainability Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          It was possible to retrofit the application to passivhaus standard to enhance energy performance in future although the application had high standards now.

     ii.          Officers would feedback discussion points from today’s meeting to the Applicant, such as Councillors requested consideration be given to install water meters for individual dwellings.

Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that Condition 8 be firmed up to ensure public right of way was kept in place.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that condition 15 contain details about specialist housing. Housing designated and designed for elderly living should be M43 compliant.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to:

      i.          Approve application reference 22/01966/S73, subject to:

a.    The conditions and informatives set out below in this report; and

b.    With authority delegated to officers to carry through minor amendments to those conditions and informatives (and include others considered appropriate and necessary) prior to the issuing of the planning permission.

      i.          Approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/32/JDCC

Due to issues with the version of Design Code included in the agenda pack, Officers recommended Councillors should not determine this item today.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to defer the application from today’s Agenda.