Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Hawkins and Bygott. Alternate Members would change for the different agenda items so a roll-call would be taken at the start of each item.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Baigent	All	Personal - Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor Smart	21/09/JDCC and 21/10/JDCC	Disclosable Pecuniary Interest: Did not participate in any discussion or the vote.
Councillor Bradnam	21/11/JDCC	Disclosable Pecuniary Interest: Did not participate in any discussion or the vote.
Councillor Baigent	21/11/JDCC	Personal – His wife (Councillor S. Baigent) spoke in objection as a Ward Councillor to NIAB. Councillor D. Baigent had not fettered his discretion.

 

                   

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment: Councillor Daunton to be listed as Ward Councillor who did not participate in the discussion or debate.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment: Councillor Porrer to be listed as present.

 

The minutes of the meetings held on 15 December 2021 and 26 January 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillors present:

      i.          Cambridge City Council: Councillors D. Baigent, Page-Croft, Porrer, Scutt S. Smith and Thornburrow.

     ii.          South Cambridgeshire District Council: Bradnam (Chair), Chamberlain, Daunton, Fane and J. Williams

 

The Committee received a reserved matters application pursuant to 06/0796/OUT (as amended by 21/01584/S73) for a new Cambridge Children’s Hospital (CCH), hard and soft landscaping, internal roads and ancillary infrastructure. Discharge of Condition 14 (Amenity Space Strategy) pursuant to outline approval 06/0796/OUT.

 

Ms Charlton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The frontage complied with the condition  restricting the amount of continuous frontage.

     ii.          The footprint of the building went 6.5m beyond the plan given by the  outline planning permission. Officers felt this was acceptable.

   iii.          The car parking strategy would be confirmed nearer to the opening of the hospital. Car parking provision would be controlled by condition which would require approval before the hospital opened.

   iv.          Pedestrian and public transport access would be controlled by condition as would access signage.

    v.          The hospital would monitor the number of staff travel movement by both public and private transport. The intention was to encourage journeys by public transport and get to 20% private transport usage.

   vi.          Details of proposed shuttle bus services from proposed Cambridge South railway station is not known at this stage

 vii.          The Drainage Engineer was satisfied the site was not at risk from flooding. Mitigation measures were controlled through conditions.

 

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The station had no planning permission at present, so shuttle bus provision could not  be confirmed.

     ii.          The NHS had active travel plans for the site. The hospital worked with Greater Cambridge Partnership, the County Council and Planning Authority to develop these.

   iii.          Each hospital on-site (Rosie, Addenbrooke’s etc) had its own Transport Strategy. The aim was to draw these together into a cohesive document before further development occurred on-site.

   iv.          Gypsy and Traveller access needs would be reviewed in future.

    v.          Passive and active air flow measures were in place. The Sustainability Officer had raised no objections and was satisfied that criteria had been met.

 

Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that Condition 12 be amended as per bold text:

 

12. Construction Phase

No development, including preparatory works, shall commence until details of measures indicating how additional surface water run-off and ground water from the site will be avoided during the construction works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The applicant may be required to provide collection, balancing and/or settlement systems for these flows. This should include the maintenance proposals during construction. The approved measures and systems shall be brought into operation before any works to create buildings or hard surfaces commence and demonstrate that SuDS near or adjacent to the site can be protected.

 

Reason: To ensure that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/9/JDCC

Councillors present:

      i.         Cambridge City Council: Councillors D. Baigent, Page-Croft, Porrer, Scutt S. Smith and Thornburrow.

    ii.         South Cambridgeshire District Council: Bradnam (Chair), Chamberlain, Daunton, Fane and J. Williams

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of an underground service corridor to serve the proposed new Cambridge Children’s Hospital

 

Ms Charlton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report:

      i.         Flooding in tunnels, possibly by contaminated water.

    ii.         Queried if surface water flow into Hobson Conduit was controlled by legal agreement.

 

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommended Condition 10 (detailed flood resilience measures), requiring measures for treating and disposing of collected water to be included in the information submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development.

 

This amendment was carried by 11 votes to 0. 

 

The Committee: 

 

Resolved (by 11 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer including the amendment to condition 10. 

Councillors present:

·       Cambridge City Council: Councillors D. Baigent, Gawthrope Wood, Page-Croft, Porrer, Smart (Vice-Chair), and Thornburrow

 

Councillor S. Smith attended and spoke as a Ward Councillor but did not participate in the decision making.

 

·       South Cambridgeshire District Council: Councillors Chamberlain, Daunton, Fane, Hunt, and J. Williams

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for retention of the former NIAB Headquarters building, the demolition of all other buildings and structures, and the erection of buildings with basements for 291 Build to Rent units (Use Class C3) including affordable housing and a 202 bed Apart-Hotel (Sui Generis) and associated facilities along with access, car and cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.

 

The Principal Planner updated her report by referring to the amendment sheet:

      i.          Late documents.

     ii.          Third party comments.

   iii.          Consultee comments.

   iv.          Amendments to text.

    v.          Changes to conditions.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident:

      i.          Spoke on behalf of various residents.

     ii.          Objected to recommendation A, but supported recommendation B - alternative heritage access arrangements.

 

The Committee Manager read statements on behalf of two other local residents who objected to the application.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor S. Smith (Ward City Councillor) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

The Committee Manager read statements on behalf of Ward Councillors (City Councillor S. Baigent and County Councillor Rae) who objected to the application.

 

The Committee began debate with a discussion on the following Planning Assessment topics:

-        Principle of development / housing / design.

-        Heritage / archaeology / sustainability.

 

The Principal Planner said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Thirty seven affordable homes would be provided on-site. There was no affordable housing provision in the fall back position.

     ii.          Parking and open spaces were to be managed by the management company who would be appointed for the site.

   iii.          The service charge would be included in the monthly rent.

   iv.          Provision of a communal pool/gym was protected for fifteen years and would be secured through a Community Use Agreement. This followed standard terms. Facilities could be lost in future if either side ended the Community Use Agreement.

 

Councillor D. Baigent proposed and Councillor Williams seconded a proposal to defer the application to seek more affordable housing being provided on-site.

 

This proposal was carried by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention.

 

The Committee:

 

The application was deferred with Officers directed to negotiate to secure an improved on-site affordable housing provision.

Councillors present:

• Cambridge City Council: Councillors D. Baigent, Smart (Vice-Chair), S. Smith and Thornburrow
• South Cambridgeshire District Council: Councillors Bradnam (Chair), Chamberlain, Daunton, and J. Williams

 

The Committee received a presentation from:

·       Agent: David Fletcher

·       Applicant: Alexis Butterfield

 

Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments provided by 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.

 

Themes for Member questions were:

• Masterplan framework
• Green spaces and nature
• Movement and access
• Sustainability
• Emerging design
• Next steps.