Agenda and minutes

South Cambridgeshire District Councillor (SCDC) Cahn sent apologies with Councillor Garvie attending as an alternate. SCDC Councillor R Williams also sent apologies.

Apologies were received from City Councillors S Smith, Thornburrow and Flaubert. Councillor Levien attended as an alternate for Cllr Flaubert.

As Councillor S Smith (Vice Chair) was not present, Councillor Porrer proposed Councillor Smart as Vice Chair for the purpose of the meeting, Councillor Levin seconded the nomination approved by all without the need for vote.

Minutes of June 21^st and July 19^th were approved and signed by the Chair.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used thier discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda.

Submission of details required by condition 17 (Detailed design approval: Cambridge South Station) for phase 4 of the development of the deemed planning  consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA)

The application sought approval of the details required to discharge condition 17 of the deemed planning permission linked to the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order. The Transport Works Act Order (TWAO) application and the deemed planning permission granted by the Secretary of State in December 2022 related to a cross boundary scheme which had one permission crossing both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Condition 17 fell wholly within the Cambridge City Council administrative area.

The Principal Planning Officer updated their report by referring to the Amendment Sheet highlighting the following:

      i.         Minor change to officer report to explain that the secondary means of escape (SME) bridge falls within parameter plans.

    ii.         Clarification of reason for partial discharge.

Emma Smith, of Network Rail (Applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

The Chair asked Emma Smith to clarify the following points.

      i.         What would the travel route be from side of the station to the other if cycle parking were not available on one side?

    ii.         Could the applicant confirm that the materials used on site would allow full mobile phone access and will not block mobile phone signals?

   iii.         There would be a risk of the sedum dying in very dry weather. Was there a mechanism in place which would allow the roof being watered in such circumstances?

  iv.         Would Network Rail share the data on the monitoring of the grey water scheme on how the green and blue roofs were working and the transport movements taking place through the station?

The response given was as follows:

      i.         If there was no space on one side of the station, rather than entering the station, would advise to use the road, rather than through the ticket gates, which would be the easiest way.

    ii.         Believed that the designers would have looked at the operability, materials, and the usage, as the station would not have a ticket office. There would be a reliance on traveller use of mobile phones and other devices. Would take away the specific details concerning the steel to investigate this further.

   iii.         Could not comment on the irrigation of the sedum roof. As part of the station design it would had been investigated how the station would be maintained, so it should have been considered.

  iv.         Confirmed that data requested would be provided to officers.

In response to Member’s questions and comments the Principal Planning Officer and the Strategic Sites Manager said the following:

      i.         The toilets inside of the station would be publicly accessible, although only from inside of the barriers. Did not have the details of the access arrangements for this matter.

    ii.         The glass on the over bridge was slighted textured but would allow views from either side.

   iii.         It was the intention the hard and soft landscaping condition would be dealt with under officer delegated powers as with all other conditions relating to the station.

  iv.         If Members felt that particular conditions would be of interest to the Committee then they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/36/JDCC

Submission of details required by condition 22 (Cycle Parking: Cambridge South Station) for phase 4 of the development of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA)

The Committee received a submission of details required by condition 22 (Cycle Parking: Cambridge South Station) for phase 4 of the development of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA)

The Principal Planner presented their report, highlighting the following amendments:

      i.         Two late representations had been received

    ii.         Amended plans submitted to rectify issue with scale and mislabelling on the plans.

   iii.         Clarification of reason for partial discharge

  iv.         Error on par 8.1 (third bullet point) which should have read – “Request that the number of spaces provide on the eastern side is increased above 500 as their will likely be more demand on the eastern side from CBC staff”.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident on behalf of a Trumpington Residents Association (TRA).

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Supported the station as a destination station for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It would help to reduce traffic on the roads as the Campus developed.

    ii.         Hobson’s Park (the Park), which is in the Green Belt, on the western side of the station was a “tranquil place” in a busy area; confirmed by the Planning Inspector. Tried to limit the station’s impact on the Park and to get the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to live up to its responsibilities in delivering the station.

   iii.         A 20- to 30-metre-wide strip was effectively being taken out of the Park from the Guided Busway to the station on the western side of the railway, this being the gap between the new shared use path to the station and the shared use path to the Campus alongside the Guided Busway. The largest of the construction compounds would be in the Park until 2025.

  iv.         Objected at the Public Inquiry to Network Rail’s proposal for cycle parking spaces, not only because it took space out of the Park, but to the hundreds of cycle movements each day through the Park on the new shared use path which threatened the very tranquillity.

    v.         Questioned why is it was proposed to have so many spaces on the western side forcing cyclists to leave the station and cross Addenbrooke’s Bridge on an already very busy shared use path to get to their destination in the Campus? This did not make sense.

  vi.         Network Rail had not made their case for 1,000 spaces evenly split between the east and the west. This was not a product of the Transport Assessment that Network Rail referred to, but an assumption made in that assessment. Also, the trip destination information which the Transport Assessment did contain supported a 30/70 split west / east, not 50/50.

 vii.         The application also conflicted with the recommendation made by the Planning Inspector following the Public Inquiry, which cast doubt on the need for 1,000 spaces in total, particularly the 500 proposed on the western side. It also conflicted with the Secretary of State’s decision which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/37/JDCC