Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Cahn, Councillor Garvie attend as the alternate.

Councillor Thornburrow and Councillor S Smith also gave apologies.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a report on the Planning Committee Review.

The report referred to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (GCSP) which supported the three Planning Committees, Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, and the Joint Development Committee.

The GCSP had carried out a review of all three committees to improve and produce a unified approach to planning. The purpose of the review was to review those recommendations made as part of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) review and develop a transformation plan.

Members made the following points in relation to the Officer’s report:

      i.         It was disappointing that the report author had not been able to attend any of the relevant committee meetings to present the report in person.

    ii.         Inconsistencies in the Draft Members’ Code of Conduct, final paragraph 3.10 (p23 of the agenda pack): Members could remain in the Chamber if they had a pecuniary interest but must sit in the public gallery until the item had been determined. However, further in the document it stated that Members may not sit in the meeting even as a member of the public.

   iii.         Under Declarations of Interests (p38 of the agenda pack), referenced a prejudicial interest; a prejudicial interest had not been defined anywhere in the document.

  iv.         The document was not clear whether it was being directed to a Member in their ordinary role as a local Ward Councillor or as a Member of the Planning Committee.

    v.         Would like it to be made clear in the Case Officer’s presentation to Committee, if any questions from Members were received after publication of the agenda, and what those responses are. (Recommendation R5, paragraph 4.1.1 of the report).

  vi.         Welcomed the inclusion of Ward and Parish Councillors in the documentation but needed to ensure there was engagement with the Parish Councillors to understand the process.

 vii.         Changes should be actioned straight away and not left as pending. The PAS report had been completed four years ago and no changes had yet been made.

viii.         Officers needed to make Members aware of the changes as soon as they been made, so they were aware of the protocol for each application at the time of consideration.

  ix.         Asked if there was an end date for completion and implementation of the recommendations as there was no fixed date shown on the timeline of works.

    x.         Questioned if any of the recommendations in the report would be referred to City Council’s Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee for approval.

The Chair thanked the Democratic Services Officer for presenting the report.

The Committee received an application for the erection of a Research and Development / Office building (Use Class E) and associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, infrastructure works and plant.

The Principal Planner referred to details on the Amendment Sheet:

Strategic Transport

22.5 The Transport Assessment Team requests a contribution for strategic infrastructure to mitigate the transport impact of the development. The calculation is based on the methodology used to calculate strategic transport contributions in other sites recently approved in the Northeast Cambridge area. This would be allocated to the Chisholm Trail and Milton Road corridor improvement schemes. The cost of the improved cycleway which is being provided as part of the development as shown in drawing KMC 23006/002 Rev B (condition 34 cycleway completion) would be deducted from the strategic infrastructure contribution as the cycleway will also benefit other users. The cost of the cycleway will be agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council. This route can be deducted from the overall contribution because it is considered to be a local infrastructure improvement which will be of benefit to other users of the area not just the buildings occupants.

An estimate of the cost of providing the cycleway has been provided as part of the planning application showing it would cost approximately £878,000 meaning that it is likely that no off-site contribution will be provided. This estimate has been considered reasonable and the approach has been agreed with the Transport Assessment Team at Cambridgeshire County Council. Should the cycleway cost be less than estimated, the remaining money will be allocated to strategic infrastructure. The mechanism for doing this will be included within the S106 agreement.

Amendments To Conditions:

Amendment to Condition 17 to remove the reference to off-site provision for clarity.

17. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

No development shall commence, apart from below ground works and demolition, until a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Scheme, which shall include details of purchase and monitoring of the offsite biodiversity units, a biodiversity metric for the site, costings and appropriate legal agreements to guarantee third party delivery of ongoing habitat management requirements has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Emma Woods (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Transport Assessment Manager and Strategic Sites Manager said the following:

      i.         The details of the building fins, including their maintenance and management would be secured by a planning condition, noting that it would be in the best interests of the applicant to ensure the longevity of these features. As part of the sustainability exercise, consideration had been given to how the fins could be removed, repaired and maintained over the building’s life cycle. 

    ii.         Was not possible to secure outdoor gym equipment but there was a significant green area which the site looked out on to which would allow workers to exercise on. There was a gym elsewhere on the Science Park.

   iii.         Noted the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/34/JDCC