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. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: democratic.services@cambridge.gov.uk

No. Item




Apologies were received from Councillors Porrer, Smart and S.Smith, (Councillor Scutt attended as an alternate).


Declarations of Interest







Personal: Member of Cambridge Past Present and Future.



Personal and Prejudicial - Spoke as a Ward Councillor. Withdrew from discussion and did not vote.



Personal – Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.



Personal – Parish, District and County Councillor for Milton.



Personal – Director of company and trustee of land located near the application.



Personal – Application was located adjacent to her ward but she had not discussed it or fettered her discretion.



Personal – Present at Parish Council discussion of application but had not fettered her discretion.



Personal – Application close to Lime Kiln Hill and he is the Chair of Lime Kiln Caravan Club.



Minutes pdf icon PDF 202 KB


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 icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:


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 icon PDF 851 KB

Additional documents:


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 icon PDF 737 KB

Additional documents:


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 icon PDF 442 KB

Additional documents:


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:




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