Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Price and Holt and Councillor Gawthrope attended as alternate for Councillor Price.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2015 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 19 August 2015 were approved as a correct record subject to the amendment of the typographical error regarding Councillor Ashwood’s name on p2 of the minutes.

The Committee received a consultation paper for the review of the Joint Development Control Committee Cambridge Fringes Terms of Reference to incorporate City Deal infrastructure schemes.

The Committee noted the revised Appendix 2 Terms of Reference for the Joint Development Control Committee Cambridge Fringes circulated at the meeting, which changed a typographical error at page 30 of the committee agenda pack, paragraph 1, third line where the first reference to ‘City Deal infrastructure schemes’ was deleted.

In response to Members’ questions the New Neighbourhoods Development Manager confirmed that the terms of reference would be kept under review to ensure that they continued to be fit for purpose.

The Committee

Resolved (unanimously) to support the principles of the proposed changes to the JDCC Terms of Reference subject to:

a)       Consultation with City Council and SCDC Planning Committees

b)       Endorsement by Cambridgeshire County Council Constitution and Ethics Committee

c)       Formal approval through the three Councils.

The Committee received a full application for the erection of a new car showroom and car valeting building along with associated infrastructure following the demolition of the existing Jaguar and Used Car Centre showrooms and other buildings.

The Committee noted the amendment sheet which detailed an amendment to condition 11.

The SCDC Team Leader for New Communities confirmed that the County Council had withdrawn their objection in relation to the potential increase in vehicle trips onto Newmarket Road following the submission by the Applicant of additional information.

Mr Hendry the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.             Queried what was meant by paragraph 8.15 on p39 of the committee agenda pack.

ii.            Questioned how this development fitted in with the Wing development.

iii.           Questioned whether the impact of construction traffic had been considered.

In response to Members’ questions the SCDC Team Leader for New Communities said the following:

i.             The County Council monitoring sum which went alongside the travel plan was only effective if the travel plan itself was monitored.  

ii.            The traffic management plan was one way in which the construction traffic would be managed.  Condition 4 related to construction traffic.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer and the revised condition 11 tabled on the amendment sheet.

Phased development of sporting village comprising new sports facilities, community and leisure uses, ancillary retail and residential development of 520 dwellings.

Phased development for community football stadium, erection of new building to include corporate hospitality, community uses, retail, café/restaurant, offices, 120 student units and erection of 13 residential dwellings.

The Committee received a presentation on the land to the west of Hauxton Road and land to the west of Cambridge Road Hauxton and Abbey Station Newmarket Road.

Penny Jewkes, the Legal Advisor, reminded members present of the status of the proposed development on the Trumpington site in terms of its green belt location and that it is not an allocated development within either the adopted or emerging Local Plans and would therefore currently or potentially in future constitute a Departure application.  Members were advised to bear this in mind in their discussions in order not to fetter their discretion in terms of voting on any future planning application. 

Members raised comments and questions as listed below.  Answers were supplied but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers were to be regarded as binding and so are not included in the minutes.

1.   What measures had been considered to mitigate the impact of the development on Hauxton Road.

2.   How had wider transport impacts been considered including on localities such as Sawston and taking into account the stadium development approved there?

3.   How would the facilities being proposed on the sporting village relate/compete with the new facilities proposed in Sawston?

4.   Questioned whether the two applications could be considered together.

5.   What was the test for development in the green belt.

6.   Questioned what facilities there would be for disabled people.

7.   Had the impacts of intensification of use on the Abbey Stadium site been considered in transport terms and had bus improvements been proposed as part of this?

8.   Advised that a recent decision made by the City Deal Assembly on the orbital bus route scheme may have had an impact on the development site.

9.   Questioned what consultation had been undertaken with The Shelfords and Stapleford wards, Harston Parish Council and Haslingfield Parish Council and residents.

10.               Questioned what other locations had been considered for the sporting village scheme.

11.               It was requested that Haslingfield Parish Council were directly consulted in relation to the scheme.

The amendment sheet was noted.