A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Committee Manager


No. Item




Apologies were received from Councillors Fane and Stobart with Councillors Garvie and John Williams attended as alternates.


Declarations of Interest







Personal: Cambridge cycling campaign



Personal: Cambridge cycling campaign



Minutes pdf icon PDF 279 KB

Additional documents:


The minutes of the meetings held on 12 December 2023 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


The minutes of the meetings held on 24 January 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment for agenda item 24/4/JDCC 23/00835/FUL – Taylor Vinters Merlin Place, 460 Milton Road, Cambridge:


The correction of a typographical error at point i of the Officer’s response to Members questions and comments:

      i.          The location of the crossing place at Carling Cowley Road was indicative and would be agreed at the detailed design stage.


The minutes of the meetings held on 12 February 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


23/03347/REM - Land North of Cherry Hinton, Coldham's Lane, Cambridge pdf icon PDF 836 KB


The application sought reserved matters approval for the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of 136 residential units with associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping. The application included details for approval required by conditions on the outline consent, seeking to part discharge those conditions in relation to this parcel only.


The Planning Consultant for Strategic Sites Team, highlighted the following changes that were not on the Amendment Sheet:

      i.         Discharge of condition 20 in relation to this parcel only.

    ii.         Condition 30 would not be discharged in relation to RM44.


The Planning Consultant for Strategic Sites Team then updated their report by referring to the amendments contained within the Amendment Sheet as follows:

6.1    Active Travel England – No objection

6.2    Following clarifications, Active Travel England have updated their response to one of ‘no objection’.

6.52  Waste Team, Greater Cambridge Shared Waste – No objection, following clarification regarding bin collection points, collection for Block 2C and reversing of collection vehicles.

15.8 Active Travel England was advised of this background on the matter and have no objection regarding the application.

15.10 The context of the hedgerow within neighbouring property has been relayed to Active Travel England and on this basis, they have no objection to the proposal.

17.1  The outline planning permissions secured a requirement that all homes would need to meet (or exceed) Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). All homes within this phase would meet or exceed the NDSS, except for one private unit within block 2M. This is a 3-storey terraced house which would accommodate 3 bedrooms and 5 persons, proposed with a total gross internal area (GIA) of 93 square metres.

17.2  The standard minimum GIA for this type and size of dwelling would be 99 square metres, a difference of 6 square metres and 6% of the minimum NDSS requirement. Other units within this same block will significantly exceed the spatial standards. On balance, o Officers are of the view that the development would provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants in accordance with Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).

17.6  A total of 22 units (16% of the total dwellings) within Blocks 2E, 2G, 2H and 2M would have approximately 15 metres back-to-back distance and would therefore be below the recommended distance. Notwithstanding the proximity of the units, the layout of the parcels and Blocks have been carefully designed and windows have been arranged so that those serving rear habitable rooms do not face windows at habitable rooms directly on neighbouring units. This allows that good street design is promoted and is in line with the approved Design Code. All proposed three storey properties exceed the minimum distances.

18.8  Whilst we have not had any formally comments from the Following clarifications by the applicant team, the Councils Waste team have confirmed the refuse plan is, officers consider the proposals to be acceptable and therefore Condition 64 can be partially discharged in relation to RMA4.

24 Planning Balance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/11/JDCC


21/02957/COND29A & 21/03035/COND29 - West Anglia Main Line Land Adjacent to Cambridge Biomedical Campus pdf icon PDF 307 KB


The application sought submission of details required by condition 29 (Hard and Soft Landscape) of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/03035/TWA & 21/02957/TWA).


The Principal Planner updated their report by a verbal update to ensure that the recommendation referenced the deemed planning permission as this detail had been omitted from the report.  


Elliot Stamp, Network Rail, (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.


The Principal Planner and the Strategic Sites Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions and comments:

      i.         The Landscape Officer had originally suggested a galvanised mesh could be used behind the Corten railing to provent litter accumulating. However, the applicant explained the maintenance and litter picking standards were such that this would not be required which the Landscape Officer agreed.

    ii.         The applicant had confirmed that they would not be providing a space for electric scooter parking as part of the development because space was at a premium. There was also concern that the batteries were flammable.

   iii.         The curved access arrangement from the guided busway bridge to the eastern forecourt had been reviewed by the County Council’s highway engineer who found the access arrangement to be acceptable. The gradient coming down off the busway conformed with Building Regulations and the Government's cycling design guidance LTN 120.

  iv.         Members requested ‘go slow’ signage to be provided on the curved access to the station as part of the submission to discharge this condition.

    v.         The ticket machines on both sides of the station were under the canopy which would provide shelter. There would be lighting in the area.

  vi.         Green screen on the AstraZeneca side of the station would be covered by the five-year replacement requirement; if unsuccessful Officers should be able to request an alternative boundary treatment.

 vii.         Was not aware of how steep the ground levels were in Hobson Park but work had been undertaken to ensure that these was wheelchair accessible which the Landscape Officer had deemed acceptable.

viii.         The wayfinding strategy was very detailed particularly close to the station as that was where the applicant could put the signage. There were totems proposed which would have wider way finding information.

  ix.         The applicant had a legal agreement with the Biomedical Campus which would ensure wayfinding through this part of the site. The applicant was also engaging with the County Council regarding signage in the wider area, the outside of the site edged red as shown in the plans. 

    x.         Was unsure what the term ‘river units’ referred to in terms of biodiversity but there was an element of Hobson Conduit which run through the site, that may be related.

  xi.         Cycle parking would be covered by CCTV and there was good level of natural surveillance which was different to closed environment at Cambridge North Station. Cycle parking details were previously approved by JDCC in August 2023.

 xii.         Noted the comments with regards to future tree conditions should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/12/JDCC


210 - 240 Cambridge Science Park

Proposed demolition and redevelopment of site, comprising flexible lab office buildings and supporting infrastructure.


The Committee received a briefing/presentation from developer representatives.


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.         What provision had been made for the open spaces to be accessible in the winter and how would the space be useable all throughout the year?

    ii.         How much shading would there be to the green outdoor space which ran through the centre of the site particularly in the winter months?

   iii.         Would the changing places toilet be publicly accessible?

  iv.         What segregation, traffic calming measures, would be added to the main street for pedestrians and cyclists. It needed to made clear the car was not the owner of that space but a shared space?

    v.         Asked what why the number of vehicles had not been reduced on such a highly sustainable site, as was near to a park and ride site and bus route in and out of the city.

  vi.         How many cargo bikes spaces were on site?

 vii.         Had provision been made for delivery drop off points on site; people would arrange for packages to be delivered to their work.

viii.         Requested further information regarding the glazing, this could add to the heat of the building. Was there a heat management plan for the application.

  ix.         Sceptical about green walls, which could become brown walls. When the application came to Committee, would be beneficial to include detail on how these would be maintained.

    x.         When looking at the indicative views of the building from the A14/A10 fly over, the massing was substantial and suggested softening of the building with greenery.

  xi.         Requested further detail on the height of the building and its relationship to surrounding structures. 

 xii.         How many employees were currently on site and how many would be on site in the future?

xiii.         What was the rationale for reducing the height from the original design which would reduce the office / lab space?

xiv.         Car parking should not be permitted on site.

xv.         Questioned how long the buildings would last. At a previous meeting (September 2023), the Committee had a considered an application for the 440 Unit at the Cambridge Science Park which had a forecast of a 100-year life; would hope the application would match if not exceed this. 

xvi.         How well integrated where the landscaping plans with neighbouring applications, such as Unit 440.

xvii.         How practical and deliverable was the modal shift figures quoted from vehicles to cycles on site? Further detail should be included to advise on how this would be achieved.

xviii.         Would like to know the number of cycle parking on site.


The B2 land, land north of Newmarket Road, Cambridge

Proposed new car dealership


The Committee received a briefing/presentation from developer representatives.


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.         What was the intention for the site fronting onto Newmarket Road?

    ii.         What type of application would be brought forward for the Committee’s consideration?

   iii.         How would customers approach the building and park from Austin Road, including vehicles that required servicing?

  iv.         Important to ensure there was cargo bike parking on site.

    v.         Further detail on how the green wall would be maintained should be presented to Committee when the application came forward for consideration.

  vi.         Why would the height of the stairwell exceed the parameter plans for the multistorey car park?

 vii.         What was the other side of the multistorey car park; was this residential housing?


Cambridge Biomedical Campus Phase 2

Proposed development at 2000/3000 Discovery Drive and Multi Storey Car Park


The Committee received a briefing/presentation from developer representatives.


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.         Would all the buildings be in private ownership, or would there be any NHS involvement?

    ii.         How would the green meadow be maintained above the arched bike store as this would only be sitting on a thin layer of soil?

   iii.         Important to take into consideration the safety of staff when entering the bike store at night; this should not become a bunker.

  iv.         Needed to consider the sustainability and durability of the type of grass used for the amphitheatre style seating; consider the climate and the number of people walking and sitting on the grass.

    v.         Should re-evaluate the use of a glass frontage to the gym studio.

  vi.         Needed to be clear segregation between cycle and vehicles on the highway which could be demonstrated when the application came to Committee.

 vii.         Should consider the colour of materials on the buildings - dark colours absorbed heat.

viii.         Why was a multistorey carpark required and was there a plan for future use of the carpark when not required?

  ix.         Should consider allocating a location for e-scooter parking.

    x.         There was no public transport from Cambridge South Station direct to the site.

  xi.         There appeared to be a lack of childcare facilities across the campus.

 xii.         What was the life expectancy of the building?

xiii.         Was the market demand for wet lab spaces greater than what was being supplied; could the planning authority be doing more?