Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Cuffley, DeLacey, Harford and Tunnacliffe. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on the 21 January 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||
S/4478/17/FL - Land adj Cambridge North Station, Cowley Road PDF 2 MB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission for the erection of a building comprising of 9,723m² of
floor space for B1 (office) use, with 742m² of ancillary retail (A1/A3) floorspace, 396m² of cycle storage and 267m² of back of house
use. In addition the proposal sought permission for associated landscaping,
public realm improvements and a 125 space car park. The Committee noted the amendments contained within
the amendment sheet. Neil Waterson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report.
i.
Welcomed the changes made to the
application as they responded to the issues raised when the application last
came to Committee. ii.
Referred to the response provided
by Cam Cycle at paragraph 6.24 of the Officer’s report which expressed concerns
regarding sharp turns and lack of alignment for the cycle routes across Milton
Avenue and asked for trees to be planted slightly further away from the cycle
path. iii.
Questioned whether doors opened
inwards and if this was in compliance with fire regulations. iv.
Questioned if the reduction of car
parking spaces after 10 years was a realistic expectation. v.
Raised concerns about members of
the public putting tables and chairs onto the pedestrian and cycle route. In response to Members’ questions the SCDC
Senior Planning Officer said the following: i.
The
alignment of the cycle way would be secured through a
s106 agreement so that it would be a free flowing cycle route. ii.
Trees were
proposed to be set back by 0.5m from the cycle route and this was considered to
be sufficiently set back. iii.
Doors
would open inwards and only the front entrance doors would be rotating doors. iv.
Car
parking was not raised as an issue when the application last came to
committee. The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager
confirmed that an informative could be added to address the concerns regarding
doors and fire regulations. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, subject to the
amendments detailed in the amendment sheet, conditions recommended by the
officers and with the additional informative: That the applicant is advised that they will need to address Building
and Fire Regulations in regard to inward opening doors for publicly accessible
buildings. |
|||||||||||||
S/4317/FL - 699 Newmarket Road PDF 631 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Price declared a prejudicial interest and
withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the
discussion or the decision. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission for the construction of a new car showroom, ancillary
office accommodation and external display and parking forecourts together with
canopied and semi enclosed washbay and photography
booth. Simon Page (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report. i.
Asked if the hours or intensity of
the showroom lighting could be controlled at night by condition. ii.
Asked if advertising controls
could be used to control the illumination of the showroom. In response to Members’ questions the SCDC
Principal Planning Officer said the following: i.
The Ford
sign was an integral part of the design of the building and there was a
proposed condition which would allow officers to control obtrusive lighting. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||||||||
17/2111/FUL - NIAB Huntingdon Road PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Price rejoined the Committee. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission for the demolition of two existing dwellings, seed
handling building, glass houses and associated structures, refurbishment
of existing office building (DEFRA 1,080 m2) and laboratory building (Bingham
& Old Granary 2,186 m2) and erection of new 3 storey laboratory building
and energy centre (2,554 m2), reception building (539 m2) new orbital cycleway
link, access road, car parking and associated landscaping. The Committee noted the amendment presented in the
amendment sheet. David Neil and Adam Davies (Applicant’s
Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report.
i.
Sought clarification where the
orbital cycle route would go.
ii.
Referred to the comments made by the Disability Consultative Panel
contained in paragraph 6.17 of the Officers report and asked for clarification
where the disabled parking would be and if it would have hatched lines around
the space.
iii.
Asked whether confirmation could be given that the existing NIAB site
would be developed for residential development. iv.
Queried what would happen beyond the White House Lane road boundary and
the safety of vehicles exiting onto Huntingdon Lane.
v.
Questioned if cyclists would have priority on Lawrence Weaver Road. vi.
Questioned what the surface of the orbital route would be. vii.
Questioned the wording of condition 22. In response to Members’ questions the
Development Control Engineer and the Senior Planner said the following: i.
The
orbital cycle route connected Huntingdon Road to Histon
Road. ii.
The
disabled parking was 14m from the front entrance of the building. There was a
drop off point at the secondary entrance which was close to the accessible
lift. There were also disabled parking
spaces in the basement and there was another drop off point which would provide
close access to the accessible lift. Condition 25 also required a disability
access statement which would be agreed by the Council’s Access Officer. iii.
The
existing NIAB site was covered by the major development scheme allocation and
the owner had indicated that the site would come forward for residential
development but the Officer could give no further assurances. iv.
The number
of vehicles using White House Lane should not be increasing,
therefore there should be no significant increase in the traffic to the
development. v.
Confirmed
cyclists would be given priority. Lawrence Weaver Road was not currently
adopted highway but once adopted waiting restrictions would be installed. vi.
The
surface of the orbital cycle route would be tarmac. vii.
Confirmed
that condition 22 related to the orbital route and not White House Lane. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the amendments detailed in the amendment sheet and conditions recommended by
the officers. |
|||||||||||||
Transport Briefing: Land North of Cherry Hinton Minutes: The Committee received a
Transport Briefing from Richard Carter, and Elliot Page on Land North of Cherry
Hinton. Members raised comments/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. Questioned the bus provision and whether there would be two buses an
hour. 2. Asked how late the bus provision would run. 3. Questioned the priority of the three crossings along the spine road and
if these would be prioritised for pedestrians. 4. Questioned if Airport Way would have vehicular access going into and out
of the site. 5. Asked if helicopter routes had been taken into consideration as part of
the development of the application. 6. Commented that a 2m high bund would restrict Teversham
resident’s views. 7. Commented that it was easy to talk about average noise levels but
emergency services call outs could occur during the night and require night
flights. 8. Asked for timescales for when the application would be submitted. |
|||||||||||||