Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from SCDC Councillor Hawkins and City Councillors Matthews and Smart. SCDC Councillor Fane and City Councillor McQueen attended as alternates.

To follow.

The minutes of the meetings held on 18 November were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a reserved matters application for the erection of a five-storey mixed use laboratory and office building and associated plant, internal roads, car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and public open space, including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The Committee noted the Amendment Sheet as listed below which could also be viewed at the following link: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=3941

1.    The application address does not actually include the wording “1000 Discovery Drive”, so the officer report is amended accordingly. The address should, therefore, read, “Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Dame Mary Archer Way, Cambridge.”

2.    There is an up-date regarding the Phasing Plan, referred to in the officer report in paragraph 44 (page 10). The contents of the Phasing Plan, as mentioned in the officer report, have now been agreed and the relevant condition of the outline planning permission (Condition 6) has now been part discharged.  

3. There are slight changes to wording of the recommended Condition 5. These are:

Point 2, after “Prior to occupation”, insert “of the building”. After point 4, in the final sentence, change the word “programme” for “scheme”.

Condition 5 should, therefore, read as follows:

“Prior to the installation of any electrical services, an electric vehicle charge point scheme demonstrating the provision of allocated car parking spaces with dedicated electric vehicle charging, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

1.    Five active fast electric vehicle charge points with a minimum power rating output of 22kW to be installed prior to occupation

2. Prior to occupation of the building, provision shall be made for 23 passive electric vehicle spaces to have the necessary infrastructure and capacity in the connection to the local electricity distribution network and electricity distribution board, in order to facilitate and enable the future installation and activation of additional active slow electric vehicle charge points as required.

3. The electric vehicle charge points shall be designed and installed in accordance with BS EN 61851 or as superseded 

4. In the event that either no construction work on Plot 3 (of Phase 2 of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus) or construction of the Multi-Storey Car Park has commenced within five years of the date of this decision notice, an additional 31 active slow electric vehicle charge points with a minimum power rating output of 7kW shall be provided. The additional 31 active slow electric vehicle charge points shall be provided within 6 months after the expiry of the five years from the date of this decision.

The electric vehicle charge point scheme as approved shall be fully installed in accordance with the approved scheme and maintained and retained thereafter.

Reason:  In the interests of encouraging more sustainable modes and forms of transport and to reduce the impact of development on local air quality, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 105, 110, 170 and 181, Policy 36 - Air Quality, Odour and Dust of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and with Cambridge City Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/4/JDCC

The Committee received a presentation on the indicative proposals for the NIAB, Huntingdon Road development.

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.         Queried what were the plans for the 1920’s NIAB building as there had been no reference to this in the presentation; was this being developed by another developer and was this in progress.

    ii.         Asked if BREEAM 2018 standard would be used for energy efficiency use.

   iii.         Welcomed the change to move the path to the side of the water garden space and not through the middle.

  iv.         Highlighted the new country park as part of the Darwin Green development which residents would also have access to.

    v.         Embraced the ideas of residents sharing more as this was an important part of sustainability; asked if shared laundry and drying spaces had been thought about.

  vi.         Suggested a space for a workshop and shared bike tools for residents.

 vii.         Applauded the open spaces which had been created; asked if there would be a space for mobile food vehicles or fruit and vegetable stalls.

viii.         Pleased the developer was aware of the importance of ecology on the site; recommended hedgehog doorways could be installed through the fencing throughout the development.

  ix.         Recommended visiting the Eddington development which had exemplar edible parks.

    x.         Queried if the development would consider the aftereffects of COVID-19. More people were likely to spend more time working from home, the interior was just as important.  Suggested possible shared meeting spaces with an opportunity to work outside

  xi.         Asked if the development would be a place that would welcome older people who wanted to downsize into rental.

 xii.         Noted the trouble that had been taken to respect the heritage of the site.

xiii.         Inquired if there could be more scope to make the roofscape more interesting on the rest of the development in respect of those immediately around the NIAB building.

xiv.         Hoped the depth of the water in the water features would enhance the site and not become a hazard.

xv.         Asked if there was any intention to the make the development a gated area.

xvi.         Requested information on children’s play areas and how many would be on site.

xvii.         Enquired what level of affordable housing would be on site.

xviii.         Requested confirmation that national space standards would be met.

xix.         Asked what studies had been undertaken to determine the need for the aparthotel on site.

This pre-application developer presentation was deferred to the February JDCC meeting.

The Committee received a presentation on the indicative proposals for Allocation E/3, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge site, Cambridge International Technology Park.

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.         Sought clarification on the height of the building.

    ii.         Requested further comment on the Landscaping mitigating the effect on the greenbelt on the area further up towards Fulbourn, on the eastern corner.

   iii.         Asked what steps had been taken on the southside of the site to stop the runoff going into the buildings.

  iv.         Stated it was difficult to see the actual scale of the development from the presentation.

    v.         Questioned if there was the right kind of density to maintain the Cambridge phenomenon in terms of people working together.

  vi.         Enquired how many businesses were anticipated, would the buildings be shared. There was no indication of a central meeting point such as a café.

 vii.         Expressed surprise at the size of the roundabout (larger than expected).

viii.         Asked if future proofing was in place for companies on site who wanted to achieve net carbon zero.