Agenda item

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the erection of a building for Office / Research & Development use following demolition of existing buildings, and associated infrastructure and works.

The Committee noted the amended conditions detailed in the Amendment Sheet. The Interim Management Support Officer also tabled an amendment to condition 9, with additional wording underlined:

‘Prior to first occupation of the building a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of the private motor vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative sustainable travel arrangements such as public transport, car sharing, cycling and walking. The Travel Plan shall include membership to the Cambridge Science Park Travel Plan Plus. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved upon the occupation of the development and monitored in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority’.

Matt Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions the Transport Assessment Manager and Transport Officer, Assistant Director (Delivery), Interim Management Support Officer said the following:

      i.         The Applicants had sought to meet the goals and objectives of the County Council’s Transport Position Statement and they felt that the applicants did meet the objectives. The increase in trips on the highway network by this development were minimal, therefore no trip budget approach was required. The mode share for car drivers proposed had been achieved on the Addenbrooke’s site and is achievable on the Cambridge Science Park (CSP).

    ii.         The people who worked at the CSP were projected to benefit from the Chisholm Trail, the improvements to Milton Road and the enhanced public transport system in Cambridge which were being delivered by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP).

   iii.         The Applicant would be making a financial contribution to these strategic infrastructure projects.

  iv.         The Applicant was not increasing the number of car parking spaces on the site which was in accordance with the County Council’s Transport Position Statement.

    v.         The £5000 contribution referred to for parking controls could be used by the County Council to install yellow lines (either single or double yellow lines) in surrounding residential areas to curb unwanted parking if the need arose.

  vi.         Explained that there were two types of parking enforcement; either controlled parking zones (CPZs), which were also known as residents parking zones or double yellow lines. The GCP had a programme for developing CPZs. The £5000 contribution would only be put towards the cost of a traffic regulation order to permit the installation of double yellow lines. This would not allow for the introduction of controlled parking zones, therefore there would be no disadvantageous impact on residents who were not able to afford the cost of a resident parking permit within a CPZ.

 vii.         The owners of the CSP currently operates a shuttle bus for occupiers of the CSP to Cambridge North train station. It was therefore reasonable to assume that employees would use a shuttle bus.

viii.         The Applicant had given an assurance that they would operate a travel management plan which would be available for all their tenants.

  ix.         The City Council had decriminalized their parking enforcement which meant that parking wardens patrolled the City and could issue fines to those parking on double yellow lines. South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) had not decriminalized their parking enforcement which means that SCDC relied on the Police to undertake enforcement for people parking on double yellow lines. Highway Officers were aware that SCDC and the GCP were in discussions about parking enforcement.

    x.         Seeking a contribution for additional double yellow lines was a ‘fall-back position’ because there was a good travel plan in place.

  xi.         The amendment to condition 5 had been proposed so that further consideration could be given to landscaping in relation to the car park layout which over looked the drain. The applicant was happy to accept this amended condition.

 xii.         Confirmed there were no height limitations or restrictions in SCDC’s Local Plan however officers had taken into consideration heights of neighbouring sites including the heights of buildings which had been given consent near Cambridge North train station when assessing the application.

xiii.         Confirmed that the construction method would be part of the approved documentation, therefore any changes to the construction method would necessitate a variation application. The Committee could state as part of their decision that any subsequent s73 application should come back to Committee for determination rather than be determined under the officer scheme of delegation..

xiv.         The public drain wasn’t included within the application site, however an Informative could be added to condition 5 so that any opportunity to increase biodiversity should be taken. Officers did not advise that this should be added as a condition as the application was policy compliant.

xv.         Noted a Member’s query regarding rainwater, however the Sustainability Officer had not raised an objection on the site.

xvi.         Condition 4 required a public art strategy.       

The Committee:

Resolved (by 11 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.         the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated authority to officers to negotiate, secure and complete such an Agreement on the terms set out within section 94 this report and any others considered appropriate and necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and

    ii.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report detailed in Appendix 1, including amendments to conditions 5 and 12 as detailed on the Amendment Sheet and the amendment to condition 9 tabled at Committee in the following terms - ‘Prior to first occupation of the building a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of the private motor vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative sustainable travel arrangements such as public transport, car sharing, cycling and walking. The Travel Plan shall include membership to the Cambridge Science Park Travel Plan Plus. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved upon the occupation of the development and monitored in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority’ with delegated authority to officers to include any minor drafting changes; and

   iii.         The relevant Informatives as set out in Appendix 1 of the officers report to be included at the discretion of officers including the following additional Informatives regarding

a.    in relation to condition 5 to consider further improvements to biodiversity.

b.    in the event of a s73 application concerning design materials that this would come back to Committee for determination.