Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Bostanci, Cahn, Sandford and Smart. Councillor Stobart attended as an Alternate for Councillor Cahn.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2026 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Verbal update on changes to the NPPF, as announced on 17 August 2026, from Philippa Kelly, Strategic Sites Delivery Manager.

The Strategic Sites Delivery Manager provided members with a briefing on the new National Planning Policy Framework as published on 17 August 2026.

The Committee received a Reserved Matters Application for the approval of appearance, layout and scale for 425 residential units and flexible Class E and F floorspace including associated infrastructure, works and landscaping, pursuant to details required by Conditions 36, 39 (parts (a) and (b) only), 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of hybrid planning permission LPA ref: 22/02771/OUT.

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment sheet.

i.      Para. 6.20 – sentence under Miscellaneous Environmental Issues referring to schedule at Appendix 2 was removed.

ii.    Noted the updated NPPF published on 17 August and its relevance to the application.

iii.   Addition of new section of report to be read before Section 20 (Conclusion) relating to overall planning balance and taking into account the new NPPF.

Richard Thomas (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Bradnam proposed, and Councillor Porrer seconded, an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a new condition relating to the long-term management of residential units, particularly with regard to guidance for residents on managing heating and cooling, and a reference to a car parking management strategy and space for car club parking.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Cllr Porrer requested the addition of an informative that the developer consider fully the space requirements of cargo bike users.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 5 abstentions) to approve  the reserved matters application subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in section 22 of the report, with delegated authority to officers to carry through amendments to those conditions and informatives including additional revised conditions as appropriate and necessary, with an additional condition relating to the management of residential units, to include reference to communicating to residents good practice principles in respect of heating within the units along with details of the residents’ car parking management strategy and details of the car club, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Committee, and:

i.      An additional informative to encourage the applicant to consider increased provision for the parking of cargo bikes.

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions) to part discharge the relevant outline planning conditions that are listed in the report in respect of the hybrid planning consent reference 22/02771/OUT in relation to this reserved matters application reference 29/01691/REM.

·      Condition 40: Internal Noise Levels

·      Condition 41: Housing Mix

·      Condition 42: Residential Space Standards

·      Condition 43: M4(2) Units

·      Condition 44: Lift Access

·      Condition 45: Sustainability and Energy

·      Condition 46: Water Conservation

The Committee received an application for a single storey front extension, single storey side and rear extension and first floor side extension and associated works.

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment sheet.

i.      Noted the updated NPPF which was published on 17 August 2026 and its relevance to the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions) to approve application 25/04604/FUL subject to the planning conditions as set out in section 20 of the report with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers.

Application reference 23/04643/OUT

Verbal update from Vanessa Blane, Legal Advisor

The Legal Advisor provided an update to Councillors as requested at the previous meeting of JDMC.

Proposed changes to approved application 24/04575/FUL to create two buildings (A1 and A2) in place of the to-be consented Building A to accommodate the first occupier for the scheme and to remove the car park double basement and a full application to construct a new multi-storey car park in place of the car deck at plot CSP 280.

Applicant: MA CSP 2 Limited

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments from 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.

1.    Had solar panels on the building been considered to provide electricity for electric car charging points?

2.    Could the developer explain deck parking? Would this be demolished as part of the new development. Would the number of parking spaces remain within the TRIP budget for the site?

3.    Would tree species be selected to suit future climate conditions? Could mature trees be planted to complement the architecture?

4.    Could developers outline the public art strategy for the site?

5.    How would the pedestrian access to the revised multi-storey car park work?

6.    More information on height increases in relation to masterplanning for the area would be useful.

7.    Would splitting Building A into two buildings lead to an increase in floorspace and employees? Was there a plan for managing travel to the site for the additional people?

8.    Had the existing deck car park already been demolished?

9.    The footpath from the ring road to the car park was narrow, would that be widened?

10.                  Why had Building A1 been designed that way?

11.                  What was the relationship between the Garden Pavilion and surrounding buildings?

12.                  What was the functional reason for moving to two buildings at A1 and A2, would it provide commercial advantage? Was it now better matched to emerging need on the Science Park and would it provide flexibility?