Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Email: democratic.services@cambridge.gov.uk
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Porrer, Smart
and S.Smith, (Councillor Scutt attended as an alternate). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 18 August 2021 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00772/OUT - Fulbourn (Technology Park, Fulbourn Road Cambridge) PDF 1 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a hybrid planning application for a total of 56,473sqm of commercial
floorspace for Use Classes E(g) i (offices), ii (research and development), ii
(light industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution - limited to data centres)
uses. Comprising a) an Outline Application with all matters reserved (except
for access) for the development of up to 44,671 sqm of floorspace, with
associated access, structural landscaping, car and cycle parking and associated
infrastructure works; b) a Full Application for the first Phase comprising the
main access, one commercial building, a multi-decked car and cycle park and
associated landscaping and infrastructure works; and c) a Full Application for
the details of initial enabling works comprising site wide earth works and
drainage. The Interim Team Leader updated her report by referring to:
i.
There
were a number of conditions in the e-report published
on-line that were omitted from the printed report. Conditions 61, 64, 65, 67
and 68 were read to Committee to ensure Councillors were aware of the details.
ii.
2 late representations, 1 in support and 1 in
objection to the application.
iii.
Updated condition wording on the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a representative of Fulbourn Forum for Community Action: i.
Spoke on his behalf and a resident
of Coltsfoot Close. ii.
The existing technology park was
formed from 2 storey buildings dug into the landscape. iii.
The new application was located on
rising ground - 13.5m high with flues, so approximately 6-7 storeys in height. iv.
Expressed concern about the impact
of the application on the green belt. v.
Referred to Design Enabling Panel
comments, which suggested proposed buildings were too high. vi.
There were inadequate landscape
buffers. Suggested putting in trees to replace some of the proposed parking
spaces. vii.
Referred to Wildlife Trust
comments regarding biodiversity. viii.
Design out of scale with the area. ix.
Residents stated the developer had
not engaged with them. They were also concerned there would be no engagement
during construction and occupation (if the application were approved) regarding
issues such as noise, dust and prevention/enforcement
to stop parking on residential roads. Mr Tzortzoglou (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Daunton (Ward District Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application: i.
The development would be located: a.
On a main road/rail route into the city. b.
Near Fulbourn where there would be 2 housing
developments nearby. ii.
The development was a large site
and the area could not cope with this level of development. iii.
Road junctions were at capacity already. The
application would bring infrastructure to a halt. People would have to commute
in but there was no funding mentioned for financial contributions to public
transport. Bus services may be unable to service the site. Road traffic would
increase as people would travel in by car not bike. iv. Expressed concern about car parking provision on site ... view the full minutes text for item 21/50/JDCC |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20/03523/ FUL and 20/03524/FUL - St Johns Innovation Park PDF 851 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of a 5 storey building and a 6 storey building for
commercial / business purposes, erection of a transport hub, gymnasium, surface
parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure including demolition of the
existing building (St John’s House) and associated structures. The Principal
Planner updated his report by referring to updated condition wording on the
amendment sheet. Mr Hanlon (Agent)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee raised the following concerns in response to
the report:
i.
Impact of the application on traffic and parking in
the area.
ii.
Overnight parking by heavy goods vehicles in Cowley
Road due to a lack of facilities elsewhere. What alternative facilities would
be provided if the County Council prohibited overnight parking here?
iii.
Impact of narrowing of Cowley Road. The Assistant
Director said this was not a material consideration for this application.
Councillor Bradnam asked Councillor Hawkins to consider the impact in her
capacity as South Cambs Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery. iv.
Drainage. The Transport Assessment Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Road narrowing was occurring as part of the
Waterbeach Greenway project to promote walking and cycling over car usage to
give them part of the carriageway.
ii.
Expected restrictions to be put on the roads to
prohibit overnight parking. Deliveries to the site should be made by small
delivery vehicles not heavy goods vehicles.
iii.
Funding from the development could contribute to
monitoring of parking and consultation with residents on issues requiring
mitigation. iv.
Restrictions were needed to move heavy goods
vehicles from Cowley Road to promote it as a walking/cycling route. An
alternative heavy goods vehicle parking site would be reviewed in future.
v.
The Travel Plan included a Parking Management Plan
which would monitor parking in nearby areas. This could be adapted to become a
Staff Parking Monitoring Plan. The Assistant Director said enforcement could occur
through an ongoing review process as part of the Travel Management Plan. vi.
People were expected to travel to the site by car,
but it was hoped a modal shift would occur in future to bikes/public transport. The Principal Planner said the following in response to Members’
questions: i.
The travel hub had car parking and a gym. There was
separate cycle parking elsewhere. ii.
Car parking spaces were capped at 1,100 as per the
Master Plan. iii.
The development was mainly office use with a small
amount of retail. iv.
Ground water would be evacuated through controlled
discharge to the sewer. v.
It was hoped to screen tall buildings on-site with
trees. Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include a condition to monitor displacement of parking before/during
construction and after occupation. This amendment was carried
by 9 votes to 0. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that flat roofs should be green unless needed for other
purposes. This amendment was ... view the full minutes text for item 21/51/JDCC |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/02450/REM - Land North of Newmarket Road, Cambridge (Marleigh Phase 2) PDF 737 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The application sought approval for reserved matters application
detailing, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of
421 new homes with associated infrastructure, internal roads, open space as
part of Phase 2 pursuant to condition 5 (reserved matter) of outline planning
permission S/2681/13/OL dated 30 November 2016. Mr Cobley (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee raised the following concerns in response to
the report:
i.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) took over some
green space area, if the SuDS did not drain, some of this would be lost as
amenity space.
ii.
Gradients in SuDS may cause a safety hazard for
wheelchair users on access paths, and if people/children got into the SuDS they
might not get out.
iii.
There were a series of alleyways through the site
to gardens that may be a focus for criminal activity. The Senior Planning Officer said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Titch area was to be built to ‘normal’ levels,
the SuDS basin had a 1 in 3 gradient.
ii.
SuDS were originally located in The Titch as this
was the only available open space. They were now located as per the submitted
design as there was nowhere else to put them as part of Phase 2. Losing 1/3 of
open space due to flooding was a worst-case scenario, but there was more than
one area of open space.
iii.
1 in 100 year flooding events were occurring more
frequently so Officers asked the Applicant to model climate change impact on
flooding in the area. Drainage Officers at both the County Council and City
Council reviewed the results and had no objections to the SuDS scheme.
iv.
SuDS were controlled through a hydro brake system
to gradually leak water stopping ponds forming. The Lead Local Flood Authority
had no objections to this.
v.
Aquatic planting was controlled through the
planting condition. The Applicant would undertake a health and safety
audit to ensure plants were safe if
anyone went into the SuDS.
vi.
Landscape planting and screening details for open
spaces would be sought in future. vii.
Bike parking provision met minimum standards,
anymore would require a change in policy. viii.
M4(2) accommodation standards were met. The City
Council wanted M4(3) standard whereas South Cambs wanted M4(2). The application
site was within South Cambs administrative area and thereby fell under its
local plan requirements.
ix.
Alleys gave access to rear gardens. Would check if
these could be made more secure in future eg gated access.
x.
There were secure gardens on top of garages as
amenity space for apartment occupants.
xi.
There were no specific timelines on when grid
capacity would be available for electric vehicle charging points. It was
assumed this would be possible in a couple of years. xii. The Design Code required apartments in the locations stated to a set density that created a mix of affordable rent and shared ownership around the buildings. This was tenure blind and so the best ... view the full minutes text for item 21/52/JDCC |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20/05040/FUL - Land to the West of Peterhouse Technology Park, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge PDF 442 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
erection of a new building comprising E(g) floorspace with car and cycle
parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The Principal Planner updated his report by
referring to updated wording on the amendment sheet. Pre-Committee amendments to recommendation: To amend the recommendation at paragraph 201
of the Officer report to read: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to: 1. The prior completion of a Section 106
Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which includes the Heads
of Terms (HoTs) as set out in section 192 in this report, and any other HoTs or
detail including phasing and triggers, that are still under negotiation. The
final wording of any significant amendments to the HoTs listed in the report to
be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair prior to the issuing of
the planning permission; 2. The planning conditions specified in this
report and detailed in Appendix 1 with authority delegated to officers to
include any minor drafting changes thereto; and 3. The relevant informatives as specified in
this report to be included at the discretion of officers. Mr Child (Agent)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee raised the
following concerns in response to the Officer report:
i.
Sufficient space and facilities for bike storage.
ii.
People would have to travel past the site then
double back to access it by bus or cycle. Requested an additional access point
in the north west corner of site.
iii.
Amenity of neighbours. iv.
Impact on neighbours: a.
Overlooking. b.
Overshadowing. c.
Loss of
light. d.
Loss of view. e.
Traffic flow and parking.
v.
Site drainage and SuDS. Concern SuDS would not
drain away water so open space would be lost. vi.
South side of site should be a green buffer zone but
was now a SWALE. Loss of greenbelt to facilitate another buffer zone. vii.
Application was just below BREEAM Excellent rating
but should achieve this rating as per City Council and South Cambs District
Council standards. The Principal Planner said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
There were no further details available regarding
light and shadow analysis.
ii.
No significant impact was expected from the balcony
overlooking neighbours. In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director said the
application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision
regarding the loss of green belt issue if it were approved by Committee today. Councillor Bradnam proposed to the Officer’s recommendation to include
an informative requesting gas assisted two tier bike stands. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative there should be no occupation on site until there was adequate
sewerage capacity. The amendments were
not voted on as the item was deferred. The Committee: Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to defer the application to seek further information to address queries raised at today’s meeting such as light levels ... view the full minutes text for item 21/53/JDCC |