Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Scutt, Councillor Gawthrope Wood attended as the alternate.

Item	Councillor	Interest
23/6/JDCC	Cllr Levien	Personal: Family member lives in Marleigh. However views are unfettered.

 

The creation of new homes, commercial units, public open space, landscaping and associated works.

Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Officers gave answers and added comments. 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. Asked about the energy efficiency of the proposed development.

 

ii. Asked about the electricity grid capacities.

 

iii. Asked if the uplift in housing numbers could be clarified and if the     developers were planning to go over 1300 homes.

 

iv. Asked if the uplift would result in a higher density and impact on the amount of green space as required in the Design Code.

 

v. Asked if they the proposed roads would be built to adaptable standards and to explain if not.

 

vi. Asked for confirmation of how the long term estate management of the proposed mixed use community and residential block.

 

vii. Noted the affordable rental properties were clustered in apartment blocks and consideration needed to be given to greater pepper potting.

 

viii. Asked about communal facilities, including EV charging points.

 

ix. Stated that Austin Road is too straight, asked whether this would this be acceptable to County Highways.

 

x. Asked if developers could clarify whether roads serving less than 12 houses could be adopted.

 

xi. Asked where the tennis courts and allotments would be relocated to.

 

xii. Stated developers mentioned tenure-blindness, said it was not just about that but clustering as well, asked if they would clarify this.

 

xiii. Asked whether there would be car club spaces.

 

xiv. Asked what the walking time to green spaces and community facilities would be.

 

xv. Stated that if there is an uplift, was glad to hear there would be 40% affordable rent.

 

xvi. Stated that dual aspect in a good solution to climate change and that single aspect dwellings are challenging

 

xvii. Would be useful to know garden sizes.

 

xviii. Would be keen to know the layout regarding block paving and any trees.

 

xix. Cornered about the use of surface parking. What does this mean?

 

xx. Asked how much work has been done to secure the long term supply of water and electricity.

 

xxi. Asked if there was direct access to Newmarket Road.

 

xxii. Asked what the speed limits would be and whether they would be 20mph.

 

xxiii. Stated that they should put in community cars.

 

xxiv. Asked whether there would be solar panels on flats.

 

xxv. Stated as the allotments were being relocated, this need to be made more explicit

 

xxvi. Asked how the green spaces will be maintained.

 

xxvii. Asked how the community gardens would be managed.

 

xxviii. Asked if water efficiency has been taken into account for green spaces.

 

xxix. Asked what the size of the communal park would be.

 

xxx. Asked the time to walk and distance from housing to the plains area.

 

xxxi. Asked to comment on biodiversity gains.

 

xxxii. Would the bin system be the same used on the Eddington site.

 

xxxiii. Asked for the number of allotments in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/6/JDCC

Cambridge South Station - New two storey, four platform station on the West Anglia Main adjacent to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and associated works to the rail infrastructure.

 

Developer: Network Rail

Members raised comments/questions as listed below. Officers gave answers and added comments. 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. Asked how much land was lost from Hobson Park for the station and the impact on BNG.

 

ii. Asked where the construction huts would be.

 

iii. Asked why emergency and maintenance assets were not considered for the Eastern side of the site.

 

iv. Asked how bicycles will be taken on the trains. Is it possible to push bicycles to the middle platform.

 

v. Asked if drop off places will be reviewed if they become busy.

 

vi. Asked if the SME bridge had been narrowed in size.

 

vii. Asked if there were 500 bicycle parking spaces on each side.

 

viii. Asked if cameras would be recording for 24 hours a day.

 

ix. Asked whether there would be staff on site at all times.

 

x. Asked how they would manage cyclists going through the pedestrian route rather than the cycling route.

 

xi. Asked how the taxi ranks would be managed.

 

xii. Asked if light levels would be controlled to protect the wildlife at Hobson Park.

 

xiii. Asked if there will be ticket machines.

 

xiv. Asked how the station traffic forecasts had been calculated.

 

xv. With the platforms length being reduced, asked how many carriages can fit on the platform.

 

xvi. Asked how we can make this site sustainable for future needs.

 

xvii. Would like more information of bicycle security.

 

xviii. Would like them to consider improving the lighting in the area.

 

xix. Would like them to include some safety points where you can contact the police and wait safely.

 

xx. Would like them to reconsider the size of the footpaths to make them bigger.

 

xxi. Asked what the philosophy of the station design would be. How is it an exemplar of a modern station.

 

xxii. Would like to see use case studies of how the station is used by people.

 

xxiii. Would like high quality lifts.

 

xxiv. Would like the developers to explain vehicle access from Addenbrookes Road.

 

xxv. Asked if it was correct that the west platform was covered, and the platform on the east was not.

 

xxvi. Asked if they canopy was adequate to cope with the number of passengers waiting for a train on a rainy day and asked if the platform canopy could be extended to cover all of the platform.

 

xxvii. Asked whether future passenger numbers have been considered.

 

xxviii. Asked for a full transport assessment to include details of forecast footfall and origin and destination of passengers.

 

xxix. Asked what the walking distance form railway to buses was. Asked for the frequency of buses.

 

xxx. Asked if they were anticipating 2.4 million passengers per year.

 

xxxi. Asked what the capacity of the station was if there was a missed train.

 

xxxii. Stated it is essential to have CCTV where bicycle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/7/JDCC