Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Fane, Hawkins, Stobart and Baigent. Councillor Garvie attended as alternate for Councillor Stobart.

Councillor Smart provided apologies for lateness and joined the meeting from item 24/43/JDCC. Councillor Smart withdrew for items 24/44/JDCC and 24/45/JDCC.

Councillor R.Williams left the meeting before the consideration of item 24/45/JDCC and then joined the meeting online part way through item 24/46/JDCC.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 August 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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).

The Committee had deferred the application at the 17 July 2024 meeting to allow further consideration of pedestrian and cycle safety including anti-social behaviour and the impact on biodiversity.

The Committee noted a representation in support of the application from the Department for Transport which was included on the Amendment Sheet.

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

The Committee Manager read a statement in support of the application from the Trumpington Residents’ Association.

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

      i.         The City Council would manage the open space areas, not the County Council.

    ii.         Officers would work with the Applicant and the Streets and Open Spaces Team to ensure that the concerns regarding wayfinding were addressed as details of signage was yet to be agreed.

   iii.         Solar stud lighting was used widely elsewhere. The path was designed to meet LTN120 standard. The supplementary document which had been submitted by the Applicant provided evidence to address safety concerns.

  iv.         Noted concerns raised regarding the angle of the path where it joined the guided busway; advised that this was approved as part of the landscape condition and could not be varied as part of the lighting condition application now to be determined.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.               Approve and discharge condition 21/02957/COND27.

The Committee received a reserved matters application for the B2 land (car dealership development) including access, appearance, layout, scale, landscaping, associated infrastructure, incorporating an extension to the Ford store together with discharge of conditions 12,13,17,18,23,34,39,40,41,42,43,45,46, and 48 in respect of outline planning permission S/2682/13/OL.

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

      i.         The impact of the multistorey car park had been thoroughly reviewed. An existing mature tree belt would provide sufficient screening throughout the year. The previous use of the site was similar to the use in this application. There were only a couple of points where the height of the proposed building was above the heights set out in the Parameter Plan so Officers believed there would be no significant adverse impact on residents.

    ii.         Fire hydrants would be addressed under Building Regulations.

   iii.         The Local Plan did not specify the number of cycle parking spaces which needed to be provided for this Use class. Officers reviewed the amount of cycling parking proposed and were satisfied this would be sufficient. 

  iv.         Car parking provision had been reviewed. Officers were content with the amount proposed and did not believe there would be overspill parking off-site into the Marleigh development.

    v.         Conditions 2 and 3 would secure the vertical planting and ensure that it was maintained in the future.

  vi.         Condition 11 required details to be submitted regarding water consumption (BREAAM Wat 01 requirements). If the applicant failed to provide sufficient information then the condition would not be discharged.

 vii.         Rainwater gardens could be considered as part of the drainage condition.

viii.         Officers had no concerns regarding the cladding and overheating. The proposals were similar to what was on site previously. No concerns had been raised by Environment Health Officers regarding overheating.

  ix.         Signage (in terms of name / display lighting for the building) would be controlled by advertisement regulations.

    x.         The trigger points for conditions 9 and 11 could be amended to be ‘prior to commencement of development’.

  xi.         Noted concerns raised about the potential for noise from transporter vehicles when reversing and advised that condition 9 could be amended to address concerns to protect residential amenity.

The Strategic Sites Manager offered the following summary of amendments to the Officer’s recommendation contained in paragraph 24 (i) of the report reflecting Members’ debate:

        i.       Approve the reserved matters application subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in this report, with delegated authority to Officers to carry through minor amendments to those conditions and informatives (and to include others considered appropriate and necessary) prior to the issuing of the planning permission with amendments to:

a.     condition 2 to include reference to rainwater gardens and green roofs on cycle shelters;

b.     conditions 9 and 11 to change each trigger point to ‘prior to commencement of development’;

c.     condition 9 to include reference to noise impact from vehicle movements.

      ii.        No amendments were proposed to the Officer recommendation contained in paragraph 24 (ii) of the report.

The Committee:

Resolved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/43/JDCC

Councillor Smart withdrew from the meeting for the consideration of this application.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary conditions 1 (Time), 2 (Restoration of Land) and 3 (Drawings) of ref: 21/02525/S73 (Retention and continued use of Regional Surge Centre 56 (RSC 56), ancillary buildings and infrastructure constructed pursuant to planning permission granted under Schedule 2, Part 12 A, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) without compliance with conditions A.2. (b) (time period) and condition A.2(c) (use of land) of that planning permission).

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

In response to a Member’s question and with the permission of the Chair, Ms Charlton advised that she was not aware of any adverse comments from the public about the external cladding. Other occupants on the Biomedical Campus had commented that the design of the cladding was appropriate and welcomed it.   

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

      i.         Was not aware of any comments from the public regarding the external cladding.

    ii.         Noted concerns raised regarding internal wayfinding within the hospital, however they could not be dealt with through this application. The Applicant’s representatives were at the meeting and would have heard Member’s concerns. 

   iii.         The application was exempt from the statutory requirement to provide biodiversity net gain; however, the Applicant had provided an additional landscaped courtyard area.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.               Approve the application subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the Officer’s report, with delegated authority 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.

Councillor Smart withdrew from the meeting for the consideration of this application.

Councillor R. Williams left the meeting before the consideration of this application.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary conditions 1 (Time), 2 (Restoration of Land) and 3 (Drawings) of ref: 21/02528/S73 (Retention and continued use of Regional Surge Centre 20 (RSC 20), ancillary buildings and infrastructure constructed pursuant to planning permission granted under Schedule 2, Part 12 A, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) without compliance with conditions A.2. (b) (time period) and condition A.2(c) (use of land) of that planning permission).

The Committee noted the correction to cycle parking numbers contained within the Amendment Sheet namely: ‘27 covered Sheffield spaces were installed when the building was installed, and Officers did not consider that any further spaces were required’.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.               Approve the application subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the Officer’s report, with delegated authority 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.

Councillor R. Williams joined the meeting virtually part way through this agenda item.

The Committee received a report regarding determined/live appeals against planning decisions of the Committee up to the 1 October 2024.

The Strategic Sites Manager summarised the issues discussed by the Committee:

i.               How would water use through water efficiency measures be monitored and that information reported back to the Council. 

ii.             What confidence can the public have in the water efficiency measures and water credits system working.

iii.            Asked that information discussed and meeting minutes from the Water Scarcity Group was made publicly available.

iv.           Noted the importance of innovative technology particularly in relation to applications which would use large amount of water (data centres).

v.             Wanted to encourage developers on residential sites to consider using innovative technology for water ahead of any planning policy changes. 

An extension to the building to provide a mixed use building comprising up to 2020m2 GEA of general industrial (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) uses to be used as a new packaging hall associated with the existing Bard pharmaceutical facility.

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.

1.    Queried noise levels as believed some of the plant (machinery) was proposed to be relocated.

2.    Queried if there would be additional deliveries and whether there would be a travel management plan.

3.    Queried water consumption.

4.    Asked for more information about the design of the building.

5.    Queried if more solar panels could be provided on the site.

6.    Asked if there would be more employees on site and whether increased parking provision was proposed.

7.    Queried the re-use of water.

8.    Queried if solar panels could be provided on the existing buildings.

9.    Queried sustainable travel and parking on site.

Outline planning permission (all matters reserved save for "access" from Cowley Road) for the partial demolition of the existing buildings, structures and site apparatus, remediation and re-profiling of site levels, for the phased development of residential dwellings (Use Class C3); older persons’ accommodation (Use Class C2); retail, financial & professional services, cafes & restaurants, indoor recreation & fitness, laboratory, offices and co working floorspace (Use Class E); bars and hot food takeaways (Sui Generis); two primary schools with play space and community buildings with ancillary uses (Use Class E, F.1 & F.2); outdoor sports play areas; associated surface and decked car parking and landscaping including central play line and SUDS; highways works to Cowley Road including vehicular accesses, improved bus stops, cycle and pedestrian facilities; and, new electrical substations; associated infrastructure, enabling and other relevant works”

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.

1.    Noted the proposed level of biodiversity net gain and asked if this could be increased.

2.    Asked if the affordable housing provision would comply with planning policies.

3.    Asked if tenants would have security of tenure.

4.    Queried management of landscaped areas.

5.    Asked if roads were proposed to be adopted by the Highway Authority.

6.    Queried whether parking hubs would be used.

7.    Queried future tree maintenance.

8.    Asked if there would be nursery provision.

9.    Queried whether displacement parking in surrounding areas had been considered and would be mitigated.

10.  Asked if s106 contributions would be made towards residents parking schemes.

11.  Queried whether measures would be put in place to ensure surface water drainage would not cause flow under the railway to the residential area within the flood plain at Fen Road, Chesterton.

12.  Queried transport links from the development to the City centre.

13.  Asked if a supermarket would be delivered on site.

14.  Asked if a crossing over the railway would be delivered as part of the development.

15.  Queried long term maintenance of shared facilities (such as laundry facilities).

16.  Asked about cargo bike parking provision.

17.  Asked about trip budgets.

18.  Queried mobility hub locations.

19.  Asked if there would be any single aspect residential properties.

20.  Asked about co-working spaces and community space.