Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application No: 16/1134/OUT
Site Address: West Cambridge Site Madingley
Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire
Description: Outline planning permission with all
matters reserved is sought for up to 383,300m2 of development comprising up to
370,000m2 of academic floorspace (Class D1 space), commercial/research
institute floorspace (Class B1b and sui generis research uses), of which not
more than 170,000m2 will be commercial floorspace (Class B1b); up to 2,500m2
nursery floorspace (Class D1); up to 1000m2 of retail/food and drink floorspace
(Classes A1-A5); up to 4,100m2 and not less than 3,000m2 for assembly and
leisure floorspace (Class D2); up to 5,700m2 of sui generis uses, including
Energy Centre and Data Centre; associated infrastructure including roads
(including adaptations to highway junctions on Madingley
Road), pedestrian, cycle and vehicle routes, parking, drainage, open spaces,
landscaping and earthworks; and demolition of existing buildings and breaking
up of hardstanding.
Applicant: Chancellors and Masters
Agent: Jim Strike, AECOM
Address: 71 High Holborn London WC1V 6QS
Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Clerk Maxwell Road
Case
Officer: Fiona Bradley
Text of Petition:
We
the undersigned petition the Council to convene a Development Control Forum in
relation to planning application 16/1134/OUT Revised Outline Planning Proposal
for the West Cambridge Site, Madingley Road,
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. We are particularly concerned by the proposal
contained within the Outline Plan to build a multi-storey car park for 450 cars
on the corner of Clerk Maxwell Road (CMR) and Madingley
Road, and by the applicant’s plan to require all cars using the carpark and all
service vehicles visiting the eastern end of the site to enter and depart via
CMR.
The
grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
1. The creation of a multi-storey
carpark conflicts with Cambridge Local Plan Policy 80, which states that
‘Development will be supported where it demonstrates prioritisation of access
is by walking, cycling and public transport, and is accessible for all’.
2. The location is inappropriate for
siting a multi-storey carpark. CMR and Madingley Road
are residential roads, and the building would be right on the edge of a
conservation area. The first thing visitors approaching the site from the city
will see is a multi-storey carpark, which would be an underwhelming
introduction to a ‘world-class facility’ and out of keeping aesthetically with
its surroundings.
3. The applicant has offered to fund
the construction of cycle paths down both sides of Clerk Maxwell Road, which
would leave insufficient space to build a feeder lane in CMR for vehicles to
queue to get into the car park, adding to congestion and pollution on the
corner and creating the possibility that cars will back up onto Madingley Road.
4. On 1 July 2020, planning approval
was granted for the construction of 35 dwellings on the site of the former
Cocks and Hens Tennis Club on CMR. The entrance to this development, where an
open play area will be provided for young children and teenagers, is opposite
the proposed entrance to the multi-storey car park. This conjunction of traffic
and play area is potentially unsafe.
We would ask the applicant to give consideration to either removing the car park from its
plan or moving it to the western end of the site adjacent to the M11, where
fewer people live, and from there, if necessary, run visitors round the site on
electric buggies. If that is not possible, the applicant should accept that it
is responsible for the traffic generated by the West Cambridge site development
and arrange for access/egress to the car park and to the buildings at the
eastern end of the site to be directed via JJ Thompson Road, rather than
utilising CMR as its service road. In essence, the
plan brings traffic from the M11 and A428 further down Madingley
Road and into the city than is necessary and is an imposition on local
residents and contrary to the public policy of encouraging cycling, walking and
the use of public transport.
Minutes:
Application
No: 16/1134/OUT
Site Address: West
Cambridge Site Madingley Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire
Description: Outline planning permission with all
matters reserved is sought for up to 383,300m2 of development comprising up to
370,000m2 of academic floorspace (Class D1 space), commercial/research institute
floorspace (Class B1b and sui generis research uses), of which not more than
170,000m2 will be commercial floorspace (Class B1b); up to 2,500m2 nursery
floorspace (Class D1); up to 1000m2 of retail/food and drink floorspace
(Classes A1-A5); up to 4,100m2 and not less than 3,000m2 for assembly and
leisure floorspace (Class D2); up to 5,700m2 of sui generis uses, including
Energy Centre and Data Centre; associated infrastructure including roads
(including adaptations to highway junctions on Madingley Road), pedestrian,
cycle and vehicle routes, parking, drainage, open spaces, landscaping and
earthworks; and demolition of existing buildings and breaking up of
hardstanding.
Applicant: Chancellors and
Masters
Agent: Jim Strike, AECOM
Address: 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QS
Lead Petitioner: Resident of Clerk Maxwell Road
Case Officer: Fiona Bradley
Text of Petition:
We the undersigned petition the
Council to convene a Development Control Forum in relation to planning
application 16/1134/OUT Revised Outline Planning Proposal for the West
Cambridge Site, Madingley Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. We are particularly
concerned by the proposal contained within the Outline Plan to build a
multi-storey car park for 450 cars on the corner of Clerk Maxwell Road (CMR)
and Madingley Road, and by the applicant’s plan to require all cars using the
carpark and all service vehicles visiting the eastern end of the site to enter
and depart via CMR.
The grounds for asking for a Forum
on this application are as follows:
1. The
creation of a multi-storey carpark conflicts with Cambridge Local Plan Policy
80, which states that ‘Development will be supported where it demonstrates
prioritisation of access is by walking, cycling and public transport, and is
accessible for all’.
2. The
location is inappropriate for siting a multi-storey carpark. CMR and Madingley
Road are residential roads, and the building would be right on the edge of a
conservation area. The first thing visitors approaching the site from the city
will see is a multi-storey carpark, which would be an underwhelming
introduction to a ‘world-class facility’ and out of keeping aesthetically with
its surroundings.
3. The
applicant has offered to fund the construction of cycle paths down both sides
of Clerk Maxwell Road, which would leave insufficient space to build a feeder
lane in CMR for vehicles to queue to get into the car park, adding to
congestion and pollution on the corner and creating the possibility that cars
will back up onto Madingley Road.
4. On 1
July 2020, planning approval was granted for the construction of 35 dwellings
on the site of the former Cocks and Hens Tennis Club on CMR. The entrance to
this development, where an open play area will be provided for young children
and teenagers, is opposite the proposed entrance to the multi-storey car park.
This conjunction of traffic and play area is potentially unsafe.
We
would ask the applicant to give consideration to either removing the car park
from its plan or moving it to the western end of the site adjacent to the M11,
where fewer people live, and from there, if necessary, run visitors round the
site on electric buggies. If that is not possible, the applicant should accept
that it is responsible for the traffic generated by the West Cambridge site
development and arrange for access/egress to the car park and to the buildings
at the eastern end of the site to be directed via JJ Thompson Road, rather than
utilising CMR as its service road. In essence, the plan brings traffic from the
M11 and A428 further down Madingley Road and into the city than is necessary
and is an imposition on local residents and contrary to the public policy of
encouraging cycling, walking and the use of public transport.
Case by the Applicant / Agent
Paul Milliner (Manger of
the Planning Division, Estates Division, University of Cambridge) made the following
points:
i.
The West Cambridge Site was a key
national and international centre for academic research and commercialisation
of knowledge through entrepreneurship and collaboration between University and
Industry.
ii.
The most recently approved local plan
supported a new vision for the site.
iii.
Transforming the physical and social
environment for users and the local community would sustain a high-quality
site.
iv.
Residents had continually been informed
of the proposal, and their views considered throughout, along with the
technical input received from council officers to help shape the application.
v.
It was unfortunate that the application
had taken so long; uncertainty over the Greater Cambridge Partnership Cambourne
to Cambridge mass transit project had made it difficult for all parties to
assess the application and determine the submission from a transport
perspective.
vi.
Had sought to resolve other areas of
residents’ concern with regular contact throughout the application (with 2020
being the exception) to engage and explain how and why decisions had been made.
vii.
Since the application was originally
submitted changes had been made to the application in respect of its
relationship with Clerk Maxwell Road; significant reduction in parameter
heights, with a reduction in the size of the Multi-Storey Car Park from 640
spaces, to 540 spaces, now 450 car parking spaces.
viii.
Other changes had been made to
accommodate residents’ concerns:
·
Removal of a servicing point from the
southern end of Clerk Maxwell Road.
·
A woodland management plan for the
vegetation along the site boundaries to improve the green buffer
·
Proposed dedicated cycle lanes along
both sides of Clerk Maxwell Road linking the Coton footpath and cycle path with
Madingley Road; remove the uncontrolled car parking on Clerk Maxwell Road
ix.
The University would continue to engage
with local people.
Mark Parsons (Planning Manager, Estate Division University of Cambridge)
said the following in response to the points raised in the petition.
i.
Concern from local people is that the multi storey
car park (MSCP) conflicted with Policy 80 of the Cambridge Local Plan.
ii.
Although the MSCP was a key strand of the wider
application the University was focused to capture softer modes of transport for
employees. The application was less focused on private vehicles, encouraging
people to walk and cycle. The University in its analysis concluded the site was
not currently conducive to this.
iii.
One of the aims was to encourage all the community
to walk and cycle through the site and to look and interact with the buildings;
it needed to feel less institutionalised.
iv.
New cycleways, better pavements, and reduction of
the need for cars to drive around the site would improve the site secured
through Section 106 funding. The aims of Policy 80 would be more than achieved.
v.
Policy 80 stated while prioritising more
sustainable modes of travel the site must be accessible for all. There must be
a balance, while prioritising softer modes the site must cater for car users
who travel to work, therefore parking provision on the site was necessary.
vi.
While setting an upper limit of car parking spaces
through the application there was a mutual aspiration that this limit of car
parking could be reduced or removed in the future.
vii.
A concern raised was the MSCP was in an
inappropriate location, out of keeping aesthetically with its surroundings. The
location was part of an overall network of MSCPs across the site intended to
keep the car parking at the peripheries to help prioritise walking, cycling,
and create new open spaces.
viii.
The majority of the MSCPs were to the west of the
site, which complemented the more commercial uses to the western side of the
development with the proportion of people arriving by private car likely to be
higher.
ix.
However, to cater for all employees across the
site, parking at the eastern end was necessary, the location of which is
currently the site for 275 car parking spaces.
x.
The three-character areas within the Madingley
Road, Cambridge Suburbs and Approaches Study (2009) noted the varied character
of residential properties, College building and grounds, academic and
commercial buildings, the Observatory and Park and Ride
xi.
The adjacency to the Conservation Area did not in
itself make the site undevelopable or the proposal unacceptable, a point noted
by the Conservation Team who had no objection to the current application.
xii.
Page 25 of the Design Guide document set out the
aims and objectives to make any MSCP exceed the 'norm' of the perceived
traditional MSCPs look. Variations to roofline, breaking up frontages,
celebration of cores and access points, projections and planting are all
detailed. Engagement with officers and residents throughout the design process
would achieve a high design standard.
Feeder Lane and backing
up of vehicles
xiii.
Residents had expressed concerned about the backing
up of cars waiting to enter the site on Madingley Road.
xiv.
An existing entrance into the site was being used;
the net difference in parking spaces would be around 170 spaces. The provision
of new cycle lanes on Clerk Maxwell Road would remove the car parking for 95
spaces along the whole length of Clerk Maxwell Road, the net difference of cars
coming onto Clerk Maxwell Road would be 75.
xv.
Parking on this part of the site would be for University
staff and employees, University staff within academic departments tended to
have flatter/slightly working hours than a traditional 9-5 job, creating a
shorter sharper peak.
xvi.
It had been highlighted that the County Council had
not said there was a need for a feeder lane into the development, even when the
larger car parks were proposed. There was no evidence in the modelling to show
the stacking back of cars, and nothing to indicate a problem would impact Clerk
Maxwell Road or even Madingley Road.
xvii.
The barrier into the development was set back from
Clerk Maxwell Road, it may be that a barrier into the site was not required,
control would be at the entrance to the MSCP, it would be far more inviting for
cyclists and pedestrians to enter the site at this point.
Cocks and Hens
Planning Approval
xviii.
Residents had raised issues between the approved
Cocks and Hens development and the existing access point. This extant
application had been considered and any concerns should have been identified
when that application was being assessed.
xix.
The current status quo allowed for a daily flow of
circa 190 car movements per day from people wanting to park their car in Clerk
Maxwell Road (excluding residents and those cars who cannot find a space and
look elsewhere). The uncontrolled row of parked cars created blind spots and
hazards.
xx.
In the future situation the only traffic passing
the development would be residents, familiar with the area and the existence of
the open space. The environment created by the removal of parked cars and the
addition of the cycle lanes and the woodland management plan would be far more
pleasant.
xxi.
All vehicular traffic associated with the West
Cambridge Site would be cut off 55 metres north of the Cocks and Hens site; any
fear of pollution or safety was removed. The proposal improved the experience
of travelling along and within Clerk Maxwell Road.
Final Points
xxii.
The applicant had worked with residents' comments,
and had moved parking spaces further west on the site reducing the size of the
car park on the North Eastern corner.
xxiii.
The applicant had been continually challenged to
improve the amount and quality of public open space on the site, to change the
perception of West Cambridge to be more welcoming, increase placemaking and
encourage cycling and walking around the site.
xxiv.
Access to the MSCP from JJ Thomas Avenue would run
a road through the proposed open space plaza as part of the interconnecting
open space network.
xxv.
On balance the application, with the recent changes
should be considered as being policy compliant and would allow a change in the
quality of the environment on the West Cambridge Site.
Case by the Petitioner
i.
Would argue that access to the eastern side of the
site should not be from Clerk Maxwell Road, and that the proposed location of
the MSCP was inappropriate.
ii.
Request that conditions be applied to any approval
in respect of at least two designated reserved matters, access, and layout.
iii.
Clerk Maxwell Road had been intended to link
Madingley Road to Barton Road. But had become a quiet feeder road to 25 houses.
As the West Cambridge site developed demand for parking had grown. Clerk
Maxwell Road had become a resource for the site.
iv.
Residents had known of visitors to the site who had
been given instructions by University departments to park on neighbouring
roads.
v.
The main east/west cycling and pedestrian green
link exited out onto Clerk Maxwell Road midway down the road and was already
busy; it would become busier once the current access point at the corner of
Clerk Maxwell Road and the Coton Footpath closed.
vi.
At the northern end of Clerk Maxwell Road, the
access to the current park and cycle has been proposed as the entrance and exit
for the MSCP. All service vehicles to the eastern end of the site were also
expected to use this access point. This would generate a significant increase
in traffic volumes using the road.
vii.
The Design and Access Statement showed the building
hidden behind a mass of foliage but in winter this would not be the case.
viii.
The application went against policy 55 of the Local
Plan.
ix.
Development was approved in 2020 just across the
road from the car park, and by 2023 would more than double residential traffic
in Clerk Maxwell Road.
x.
There would be an open play area for children at
its entrance which may have safety and pollution implications for the car
park’s access point.
xi.
Cambridge Zero, a new initiative from the
University to minimise carbon usage would “help us deliver a better, healthier
zero-carbon future”. But the car park was placed as far away from the M11 and
A428, close to the houses while remaining on the site.
xii.
Bringing traffic further down Madingley Road had
potentially serious implications for congestion and air quality, and against
both Cambridge Zero and the City Council’s Climate Change Strategy.
xiii.
Supported the Revised Transport Assessment which
identified the four main roads on the West Cambridge site (JJ Thomson Avenue,
Charles Babbage Road, High Cross Road
and the Western Access Road) to be used as the principal means for movement to
and across the site. Maximising the use of the West Cambridge infrastructure
whilst minimising the use of public roads.
xiv.
Contend that early access to the site from the M11
end should be encouraged, the only Madingley Road junction predicted not to
fail in 2031 from the significantly increased traffic predicted was the Western
Perimeter junction closest to M11.
xv.
The detailed proposal introduces using a
residential road as the main access to service the buildings in the Eastern
section of the site as well as to access the first multi-storey car park
proposed to be built.
xvi.
The Transport and Travel plans has raised numerous
questions. Focusing solely on the final 2031 position and quoting only the
morning figures the following should be noted:
·
Residents carried out a traffic survey in January
2020 and showed substantially more movement on Clerk Maxwell Road prior to 8am,
the starting time for this survey.
·
Peak inflows of 1,173, 993 and 965 are forecast for
three entry points (more than 3,000 in total); would question if it were worth
using a residential street for an additional 138 movements. It should also be
noted that even with these low forecast volumes the Clerk Maxwell Road junction
fails to operate.
xvii.
The JJ Thomson entrance had been designed as a
major access point with space and capacity for traffic especially for larger
lorries. In comparison Clerk Maxwell Road had a significantly smaller filter
lane that serviced a Northbound entry to another University site opposite.
xviii.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership proposed changes
to these junctions to improve cycling routes. The proposal showed the JJ
Thomson entrance designed for major traffic flows with major filter lanes and
significant vehicle reservoirs. In comparison, the options for Clerk Maxwell
Road junction were as follows:
·
Retain the small, shared filter lane but with site
traffic now crossing a new cycle lane.
·
The filter lane being removed resulting in congestion
from vehicles turning into Clerk Maxwell Road.
Would question if this junction were safe with lorries greater than 7.5
tonnes using the route daily.
xix.
Access planned from Clerk Maxwell Road on the
eastern part of the site could be replaced with access from JJ Thomson
Avenue. The applicant states this would
compromise the East Green link and would have an adverse impact on the public
realm within this part of the site. This did not show the same concern for the
neighbourhood and specifically Clerk Maxwell Road and asked the applicant to
reconsider.
xx.
The minutes of a community meeting on the Whittle
extension detailed the University’s leader for the North West development
project state that technically a road from JJ Thomas could access the car park
through the site.
xxi.
Cambridge City Council planning officer stated that
the upcoming Whittle extension should not prejudice an East/West route.
Therefore, an agreement that access from JJ Thomas is feasible
xxii.
Believed the current site with the planned ‘Eastern
Green link’, and a north/south cycle and pedestrian route was what the
applicant wished to protect.
xxiii.
Proposed a road from JJ Thomas to service the
eastern part of site; that most of this is already proposed as a route by the
university. This proposed service road from JJ Thomas has little or no impact
on the greenway. Almost all this route was already surfaced road with a car
park.
xxiv.
This route has a left turn off JJ Thomas, rather
than a right turn off Clerk Maxwell Road, so there would be no tail back to Madingley
Road as there is an adequate vehicle reservoir on the approach to the car park
which keeps traffic on site instead of on neighbouring roads.
xxv.
The proposed car park, assuming a standard design
of split-level car park the height would be about 11m. From Madingley Road just
15m away this would dominate the view on the approach to site from Cambridge.
xxvi.
The proposed car park would dominate the view on
the North East corner of the site and would be way above the current building
skyline behind the trees but clearly visible during winter months.
xxvii.
Suggested 2 alternative multi-storey car park
locations, one on the west edge and one on the east. The one in the North East
could be postponed until such time it was proved to be necessary.
xxviii.
Car parking on the west side of site made sense for
many reasons; it was away from residential areas, near the M11 motorway and the
A428, it would take traffic off Madingley Road and provide a partial sound
barrier for the site
xxix.
On the site to the north of the data centre there
was a planned car park. A car park with 2200 bays could be built, this would
satisfy half of the required parking for the site and perhaps 100% if
car-journey-reducing strategies were successfully introduced.
xxx.
This car park would be distant from the engineering
departments on the east edge of site, but people movement could be easily
accommodated with local on-site transportation. This could include cycling, a
possible park and cycle scheme, electric scooters, and hover boards in the
future.
xxxi.
Soon autonomous vehicles could be feasible to move
people around the site as promoted by the ‘Cambridge Zero’ project.
xxxii.
In conclusion, site traffic should be kept on site,
access to the east of site could be achieved via JJ Thomas avenue and cars
parks could and should be located to the west of site for many reasons.
Case Officer Comments
i.
The application was originally submitted in June
2016. A revised application then submitted in September 2017 in response to
consultees’ comments. Further revised documents were submitted in October 2020
in response to consultees and neighbours’ comments during the consultation
period.
ii.
Each submission had been followed by a public
consultation period.
iii.
An Officer assessment was being undertaken and the
application would be reported to the Planning Committee in due course.
iv.
A significant number of representations had been
received during the three consultation periods. Residents were largely
represented by Resident Associations, although approximately 25 individuals had
responded. Sometimes residents responded more than once to each consultation.
v.
A broad summary of the consultation responses was
as follows (full responses could be found on the City Council’s website:
i.
Scale, height, massing and density of the scheme
and impact of neighbouring visual amenity.
ii.
The proposed buildings would detrimentally affect
the evening sunlight of the gardens of houses in Perry Court due to their
height and proximity to Clerk Maxwell Road. Although some of the existing trees
along the western edge of Clerk Maxwell Road restricted some evening light, the
additional height and solid nature of the proposed building would result in a
severe detrimental reduction.
iii.
The height of the flues above the building was
considered excessive.
iv.
The proposed buildings due to location and height
would overlook the nearest houses and gardens of Perry Court and the Lawns and
result in a loss of privacy.
v.
Considered the MSCP to be inappropriately located
on a residential road on the edge of a conservation area opposite a new
development of 35 houses. This would result in a flow of traffic conflicting
with the proposed pedestrian and cycle paths on Madingley Road and Clerk
Maxwell Road.
vi.
The MSCP was located to the nearest point of the
city rather than nearer the M11 which conflicted with the aim of reducing
traffic flow towards the city.
vii.
The MSCP should be located nearer to the M11
boundary of the site.
viii.
The forecast flow of up to 450 cars daily into the
MSCP plus delivery vehicles would be dangerous for other users of Clerk Maxwell
Road. There would also be an increase in pollution and noise. It was
inappropriate to divert this traffic from the site to a neighbouring
residential road.
vi.
A joint letter from City Councillors Matthews,
Gehring and County Councillor Nethsingha support the response from the Clerk
Maxwell Residents Association and drew attention to the following concerns:
·
The number of documents and complexity of the
application that residents must consider.
·
The height and the impact on the buildings on the
eastern edge of the site and the shade they would cast.
·
The construction of the MSCP on the corner of Clerk
Maxwell Road and Maddingly Road and the increased pollution this would bring.
·
The plan to use Clerk Maxwell Road as a service
road.
vii.
The County Council (Highways Authority) comments
are summarised as follows:
·
There were outstanding issues regarding the
transport assessment and until the information had been provided and agreed
they were unable to state whether the development would be acceptable in
highway terms.
viii.
Highways England raised a concern that the revised
transport assessment had not been submitted and a holding objection was
submitted until April 2021. Highways England had since been advised that a
revised assessment had been received and was awaiting a response.
ix.
The Lead Local Flood Authority had considered the
revised information and required an addendum or update to the flood risk
assessment, this still outstanding.
x.
No objections had been received from Natural
England.
xi.
The Fire and Rescue Service had raised no
objections subject to a Section 106 agreement regarding fire provision on the
site.
xii.
The Adams Road Bird Sanctuary objected to the
application until the highlighted errors in the recent submission had been
addressed.
xiii.
Environmental Health had provided a holding
response pending the submission of further information requested from the
applicant.
xiv.
Historic England had said their views were that of
the City Council’s Conservation Officer’s and had no objection on heritage
grounds.
xv.
The following raised no objections or supported the
application: the Access Officer, the Sustainable Drainage Officer, the Nature
Conservation Officer, Historic England, Environment Agency, Sport England,
Cambridge Water, Anglia Water and Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology.
xvi.
Responses were still being received from the latest
round of consultations.
Case by Ward
Councillor
City Councillor
Matthews spoke as a Ward Councillor and made the following points:
i.
Supported the petitioner’s recommendation that the
car park should be developed last.
ii.
Questioned what detailed modelling had been done
regarding the access through JJ Thomson Road and Clerk Maxwell Road; the
petitioners had shown access was possible and took up a small proportion of
development.
iii.
Asked where the car park was in terms of design
stage and what type of design and materials had been chosen.
County Councillor
Nethsingha said the following:
i.
The outline plan
was likely to take many years to complete.
ii.
Thanked the
University for their consultation with residents and acknowledged there had
been changes made due to this engagement.
iii.
Transport was a
major issue with the whole of the city.
iv.
At present there
was a 275-space car park on site and parking on Clerk Maxwell Road. In normal
times parking on Clerk Maxwell Road was full but the car park was very rarely
full.
v.
With the potential
increase in the use of the Clerk Maxwell junction it was important to be aware
the car park currently on that site was underutilised.
vi.
Queried if there
had been any consideration to the Madingley Park and Ride site. There were
plans to relocate the park and ride. This would mean that parking could be
provided from this location close the application, reducing the volume of
traffic coming further down Cromwell Road.
vii.
Long term context
of the outline plan was important as this would be a plan which could run for
the next ten to twenty years. Over this period, it was hoped that dependency on
private cars would significantly reduce.
viii.
Welcomed the
applicant’s comment that they would not install the multi storey car park if it
was not required. Needed to be clear in the plans that this car park would be
built last as it may not be required.
i.
Noted that the
County Council as the transport authority had not yet responded and neither had
the Environment Agency.
ii.
There were flooding
issues in the area and required reassurance that the Environment Agency were
happy with the water management proposals with clear strategies how this would
be managed.
iii.
Residents had experienced water management issues
during construction in this area with pollution of local streams. The main
watercourse off the site runs under Wilberforce Road (which was prone to
flooding) into the nature reserve.
Members’ Questions and Comments:
In response to Members comments the
Applicant responded with the following:
i.
Saw the MSCP as the last rung of the ladder of the transport story.
ii.
Anticipated a car parking strategy on the site which would be done in a
phased way. It was not the aim to provide too much parking at any one time.
iii.
If the MSCP was not required, it would not be built but the application
showed worst case scenario.
iv.
Noted the request for car sharing priority.
v.
The ground floor of the car park would be considered for cycle parking.
vi.
Noted the comments for future conversion of the MSCP if parking was not
required such as educational purposes.
vii.
The application in its entirety provided significant infrastructure for
softer modes of travel; stringent travel plans would be in place including site
access.
viii.
Enhanced public transport would be secured by a Section 106 agreement;
there were also significant contributions and physical schemes being proposed
to improve cycling and walking outside of the site in the west of Cambridge.
ix.
Committed contributions towards the strategic mass transit Cambourne to
Cambridge scheme which would unlock the potential to unlock sustainable
transport patterns.
x.
Had committed to the Local Plan standard to provide EV charging points
in the MSCP.
xi.
Understood the densification of the site would lead people to think
there would be an increase in traffic but the Local Plan showed a demand for
employment, teaching and learning and believed this site made best use to meet
that demand in a sustainable location.
xii.
If densification were not on this site, the demand would be met
elsewhere which might not be in such a sustainable location.
xiii.
Any design for the MSCP would come through a reserved matters
application, currently no design was proposed.
xiv.
Acknowledged there were underutilised car parking spaces on site but the
car park could be used to its full capacity.
xv.
The Park and Ride site was leased to the County Council with the
University of Cambridge as the freeholder; could not rely on this as part of
the parking strategy for west Cambridge in the short term.
xvi.
Believed an alternative access from JJ Thomson Avenue would compromise
the aims of the Master Plan and proposals would not affect the amenity of
residents on Clark Maxwell Road.
xvii.
Local transport policy 120, there was a need to prioritise cyclist
particularly down Clerk Maxwell Road. Consultants had advised that the routes
would be safe for cyclists; consultations comments would be brought back from
various agencies through the planning process.
xviii.
Transport assessments had considered approved development and the future
increase in cycle users using the Clerk Maxwell junction.
xix.
Would focus on the physical measures to enhance the access to the city
centre which would encourage softer modes of transport such was walking and
cycling.
xx.
The overall aim was to make West Cambridge a more welcoming place for
the wider community, a place where people would want to visit and be used by
residents and the public.
xxi.
A comprehensive flood risk and drainage assessment had been submitted
with the application. County and City Officers had asked that current
legislation was crossed checked which would be resubmitted as this had been
done; the strategy met with the current requirements.
Summing up by the Agent.
i.
Welcomed the opportunity to discuss this strategically important site with
Members throughout the planning process.
ii.
Throughout the process had listened to several interested parties, council
officers, statutory consultees and residents which had helped shape the
application.
iii.
A balance had to be struck for an optimal solution which was policy
compliment across the site.
iv.
Acknowledged the issue of parking was a high concern on resident’s
agenda and there had to be a balance, too much parking would encourage
unsustainable traffic patterns but not enough would result in overflow parking
and would fail to meet the future use of the site.
v.
No objection to the carpark on technical or safety grounds had been made
by the Highways Authority.
vi.
The location and access points for the car park allow the placemaking
objectives to flourish, enhanced cycling, walking and community cohesion across
the site.
vii.
The removal of the uncontrolled parking on Clerk Maxwell Road and other
improvements to cycle infrastructure would enable this enhancement to extend
beyond the site boundary.
viii.
Recognised the final design of any structure needed to be well
considered and respond to the site constraints.
ix.
Would expect any design to be of high quality, and meet the standards
set by the City Council and the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel. The Council would
have full control over that final design at the reserved matters stage.
x.
Over the course of the application changes had been made in response to
objections from residents.
xi.
Would continue to work with officers to resolve the final few issues to
enable the application to come before the Planning Committee for determination.
Summing up by the Petitioners:
i.
Emphasised that residents were not opposed to the development, but the
plan needed to be improved.
ii.
Many comments had centred around the car park, but access to the site
was just as important.
iii.
Regarding the Clerk Maxwell junction from Maddingly Road, there had been
no mention of the expected 70 deliveries a day of which 2 flows would be from
lorries over 7.5 tonnes.
iv.
A rise from about 3,000 to 15,000 in the number of people on the site
would result in an increase in car journeys. Parking and access were key but
could be managed more considerately and effectively.
v.
The application would be responsible for the rise in vehicular and
cycling traffic. Increases in road use, congestion, noise, and pollution were
all consequences of this growth.
vi.
The planning documents stated the applicant wished to be a good
neighbour. To achieve that aim, it was incumbent to ensure plans minimised any
adverse effect on its surroundings. Prioritising protection of the public realm
within the site at the expense of the public realm outside the site was doing
the opposite.
vii.
Whatever traffic flow data presented; a casual observer would be
justified in assuming the avenues on the site had more capacity to absorb
additional volume than Clerk Maxwell Road.
viii.
Clerk Maxwell Road faced doubling in residential traffic in two years
and a surge in cycling to and from both the site and Eddington. It had little
space for cars to queue into a car park, and the entrance was too close to the
Madingley Road junction.
ix.
The whole set-up was unsuited for daily visits from 7.5 tonne lorries,
despite there being no inherent need for either service vehicles or visitors to
use Clerk Maxwell Road at all.
x.
Believed the Design and Access Statement utilised Clerk Maxwell Road as
it was more important to preserve the site’s environmental quality and minimise
the risk of conflict between service vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists on the
site.
xi.
The application did not take into consideration the environmental
quality and risk of conflict on this road and Madingley Road.
xii.
Alternatives to the proposals without requiring a wholesale redrawing of
the site plans were as follows:
·
Locate much of the parking near the M11.
·
Use electric autonomous vehicles.
·
Delay the building of this car park pending a decision over transport
needs in 2031.
·
Keep the existing service road from JJ Thomson Avenue.
xiii.
In response to the University’s list of issues:
·
The removed access point to the south of Clerk Maxwell Road the
University had reserved the right to reinstate this under a separate planning
application should it feel it necessary.
·
Although there had been a reduction in size of the car park, the traffic
flow had been ignored. There would not be just 450 cars in and 450 cars out.
·
Reduction in building heights – that is questionable and subject to a
separate detailed submission from the Residents’ Association on the OPA.
·
Cycle lanes down either side of Clerk Maxwell Road were welcomed but
would leave a single lane down the centre of Road causing congestion near the
car park entrance.
xiv.
Pleas to consider the residents had largely been ignored.
xv.
The University should recognise it had the means to achieve a
satisfactory compromise without tearing up all its plans, and acknowledge there
was no virtue in preserving acres of pristine tarmac decorated with double
yellow lines while neighbouring roads seize up under the pressure. If Cambridge
Zero is to mean anything, there must be a rethink.
Final Comments of
the Chair
The Chair observed the
following:
·
Notes of the Development Control Forum would be
made available to relevant parties.
·
The planning case officer should contact the
applicants/agent after the meeting to discuss the outcome of the meeting and to
follow up any further action that is necessary. The applicant will be
encouraged to keep in direct contact with the petitioners and to seek their
views on any proposed amendment/s.
·
The Council will follow its normal neighbour
notification procedures on any amendments to the application.
·
Along with other individuals who may have made
representations on the application, the petitioners’ representatives will be
informed of the date of the meeting at which the application is to be
considered by Committee and of their public speaking rights. The Committee
report will be publicly available five clear days before the Committee meeting.