Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Flaubert (Councillor Levien attended as an alternate).

Apologies were also received from South Cambridgeshire District Councillor R Williams.

No interests were declared. OR

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of 2,730 sqm (GIA) office building (use Class E(g)(i)) and erection of 13,096 sqm (GIA) of research and development accommodation (use Class E(g)(ii)), including ancillary accommodation broken down as follows:

i.        Office accommodation (4,648 sqm)

ii.      Laboratory space (4,388 sqm)

iii.     Café (161 sqm)

iv.    Ground floor car park incorporating 45 no. car parking spaces (1,047sqm)

v.      Plant space (924 sqm)

vi.    Cycle parking spaces (276 for staff and 37 for visitors, total 313)

vii.   Access and circulation areas, engineering works and footpaths/cycleways

viii. Drainage and servicing infrastructure, and

ix.    Hard and soft landscaping.

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from Cambridge Past, Present & Future which was read by the Committee Manager.

The representation covered the following issues:

        i.         Past Present and Future were Cambridge’s largest civic society, who aims to ensure that new development protects and enhances the built and natural environment of the city.

      ii.         Objected to the proposed development because of the mass and bulk of the proposed building and the visual impact it would have on Milton Road, which was a main approach into Cambridge and Northeast Cambridge.

     iii.         The application had been objected to by the Cambridge Quality Panel, the City Council Tree Officer, the Greater Cambridge Landscape Officer and Urban Design Officer.

    iv.         The Quality Panel and the Urban Design Officer objected to the mass of the building. The case officer considered the height of the proposal was in accordance with Northeast Cambridge Area Action Plan. This argument did not overcome the objection to the mass of the building.

      v.         The building had been described as having three elements: a south tower, a west lab block and an east office block. Did not consider there was sufficient articulation between these elements to break up the mass. There was no significant variation in height across the plot. The additional height of the ‘lantern’ element is lost beside the roof plant and flues and the east and west elevations have no articulation.

    vi.         The Quality Panel and the landscape and urban design officers objected to the size of the building being too big for its plot resulting in poor public realm. The case officer argued that the site was not a suitable location for a significant area of public realm. This was a poor response to the objection.

   vii.         Large buildings required significant space around them. Just because a site was located on a main vehicular thoroughfare did not mean that substandard public realm should be provided. The site was in a central and prominent location in the Northeast Cambridge development, so it was important for it to have high quality public realm.

 viii.         The Tree officer objected to the loss of thirty-four trees and the lack of space and sunlight to allow retained and new trees to grow to their maturity. The case officer’s response was to request S106 contribution towards off-site planting.

    ix.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/48/JDCC