Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received for this meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2025 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Demolition of existing units 210, 211, 214, 220, 230, 240 and redevelopment with Use Class E(g) floorspace (office) (E(g)(i)), research and development (E(g)(ii)) with complementary floorspace (Use Class E (a-g)) along with access, landscaping and supporting infrastructure. Retention of Unit 216.

The Committee received an application for demolition of existing units 210, 211, 214, 220, 230, 240 and redevelopment with Use Class E(g) floorspace (office) (E(g)(i)), research and development (E(g)(ii)) with complementary floorspace (Use Class E (a-g)) along with access, landscaping and supporting infrastructure. Retention of Unit 216.  

The Planning Officer updated his report by referring to: 

      i.          The amendment sheet. 

     ii.          An amendment to the Officer recommendation in their presentation as follows: 

To approve subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1 of the report, the expiry of the EIA site and press notice, and completion of a s106 agreement to secure appropriate mitigation measures. In the event that any substantive / further issues are raised as a result of the EIA site notice requirement, delegated authority to determine the application is given to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of JDMC; 

   iii.          The numbering of para 18.42 on page 68 had a typographical error and should be numbered 25.14a. 

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

Councillor Fane proposed, and Councillor Smith seconded, an amended Grampian condition to read: 

      i.          Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, written confirmation will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority evidencing that the anticipated additional net increase in waste water generated by the development is capable of being accommodated by the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre, or there is sufficient on-site capacity to deal with a net increase in waste water flows from the development. 

This amendment was carried by 9 votes to 1. 

Councillor Porrer proposed, and Councillor Bradnam seconded, an amendment to condition 6 to relate to phasing and to include that community facilities should come forward as needed. 

This amendment was carried by 9 votes with 1 abstention. 

Councillor Porrer proposed, and Councillor Flaubert seconded, an amendment to condition 16 to refer to the applicant being required to provide commercial water metering data on request. 

This amendment was carried by 8 votes with 2 abstentions. 

Councillor Porrer proposed, and Councillor Smith seconded, an amendment to condition 22 to include reference to car clubs and cargo bikes.  

This amendment was carried by 8 votes with 2 abstentions. 

The Committee 

Resolved (by 9 votes to 1) to approve application 24/04575/FUL subject to: 

(a) the planning conditions and informatives set out in the officer report to committee with delegated authority to officers to carry through minor amendments to those conditions and informatives (and to include others considered as appropriate and necessary) prior to the issuing of the planning permission, and: 

(b) the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated authority to officers to negotiate, settle and complete such an Agreement as referenced in the Heads of Terms within this report, including any other planning obligations considered appropriate and necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and the expiry of the EIA site and press  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/22/JDMC

Pre-application briefing for Reserved Matters (6) pursuant to outline planning permission ref 18/0481/OUT and S/1231/18/OL for 355 homes and new full planning application for an additional 350 dwellings, co-living/build-to-rent units and indoor sports facility on the site.

Applicant: Bellway Latimer LLP

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.    How many homes was the north park originally intended to accommodate and what did the uplift in density mean?  

2.    How many homes would be build-to-rent?  

3.    Clarification was sought on the changes in the next phase of development in terms of development footprint. 

4.    Clarification was sought on the route for refuse collections.  

5.    Had the developers considered the potential for increased construction and vehicle traffic through Cherry Hinton?  

6.    What would be the impact on the public right of way to/from Teversham?  

7.    How could the scheme be designed to be resilient against extreme weather, such as heatwaves and droughts? Had passive cooling and landscaping been considered?  

8.    Has the allocated density been reached because the developer had built out to the maximum density of the site? Would further development impact upon school/GP/open space provision?  

9.    Had the developer considered the noise implications of padel courts? 

10.                   How could the development move towards 40% affordable homes, and could long-term leases be considered?  

11.                   Heating and cooling is an issue and was there a way to educate new residents to achieve gains?  

12.                   What had take-up of photo-voltaic panels been and would new panels be installed? 

13.                   Would new homes have electric vehicle charging points?  

14.                   Garden spaces could be more attractive to allow neighbours to interact, using hedging and other planting.  

15.                   Who would manage and maintain public spaces?  

16.                   Noted that refuse stores and bring banks have the potential to encourage fly-tipping. 

17.                   Community gardens could be considered to bring people in the neighbourhood together.  

18.                   Were potential residents being consulted on plans for the community they would live in? 

19.                   Had developers considered the transition from initial management by developers, to the community taking control? The process should be made clear.  

20.                   Had developers considered the role that co-living could play?  

21.                   Could swift boxes and bricks be considered for the development?