Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Baigent and apologies for lateness were provided by Councillor Flaubert.

The minutes of the meetings held on 19 June 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Proposal: Submission of details required by condition 27 (Lighting Scheme) of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA) 

Councillor Flaubert joined the meeting before the start of the consideration of this planning application.

The Committee received an application for the submission of details required by condition 27 (Lighting Scheme) of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA).

Elliot Stamp (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following:

      i.         It was a level crossing which crossed the guided busway to the recreation area, not an underpass.

    ii.         There were solar light studs proposed to be in place up to the level crossing. There were streetlights along the busway path. 

   iii.         Unable to advise on lumen levels of the solar studs but noted that the Environmental Health Team had reviewed the details and had not objected.

  iv.         Noted concerns which had been raised regarding the speed at which bikes / e-scooters travelled on paths. The path was narrow and would be used by pedestrians which should encourage low speeds by cyclists. No speed limits were proposed for cyclists / e-scooters etc.

    v.         Officers had encouraged the Applicant to put forward a scheme using stud lighting. The Applicant had not been asked to provide information about street lighting. As this element of the site was within the Green Belt and an area of ecological importance stud lighting was considered more appropriate than conventional street lighting.

  vi.         If people did not want to use the path with solar studs, there was an alternative route available via the Guided Busway, which had street lighting along it.

 vii.         Officers had not asked for an assessment to be undertaken of solar stud lights versus street lighting and their impacts on biodiversity. The solar studs and general lighting for the station had been assessed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer who was satisfied with the details submitted recommending discharge of the condition.

viii.         The Wayfinding Strategy had already been agreed as part of the landscaping condition but noted the Applicant’s Representative (present at the meeting) would note Councillor comments about ensuring that the wayfinding signage included information about alternative lit routes through the site.

  ix.         Agreed with a Councillor’s comment that there would be light from the streetlights on the busway path which spilled on to the area with solar light studs.

    x.         The path was proposed to be maintained by the City Council; therefore repair / maintenance / replacement of the solar studs would be managed by the City Council and these obligations would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.

  xi.         The solar light studs would have bat hats on them.

 xii.         Camcycle’s objection stated that they wanted the path to be lit with something more substantial than solar light studs (for example street lighting) for safety purposes enabling cyclists to use and access the new train station.

xiii.         The Case Officer had assessed the proposal and considered lighting through solar light studs acceptable. It distills to a difference  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/29/JDCC