Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for a hybrid planning application for a total of 56,473sqm of commercial
floorspace for Use Classes E(g) i (offices), ii (research and development), ii
(light industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution - limited to data centres)
uses. Comprising a) an Outline Application with all matters reserved (except
for access) for the development of up to 44,671 sqm of floorspace, with
associated access, structural landscaping, car and cycle parking and associated
infrastructure works; b) a Full Application for the first Phase comprising the
main access, one commercial building, a multi-decked car and cycle park and
associated landscaping and infrastructure works; and c) a Full Application for
the details of initial enabling works comprising site wide earth works and
drainage.
The Interim Team Leader updated her report by referring to:
i.
There
were a number of conditions in the e-report published
on-line that were omitted from the printed report. Conditions 61, 64, 65, 67
and 68 were read to Committee to ensure Councillors were aware of the details.
ii.
2 late representations, 1 in support and 1 in
objection to the application.
iii.
Updated condition wording on the amendment sheet.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a representative of Fulbourn Forum for Community Action:
i.
Spoke on his behalf and a resident
of Coltsfoot Close.
ii.
The existing technology park was
formed from 2 storey buildings dug into the landscape.
iii.
The new application was located on
rising ground - 13.5m high with flues, so approximately 6-7 storeys in height.
iv.
Expressed concern about the impact
of the application on the green belt.
v.
Referred to Design Enabling Panel
comments, which suggested proposed buildings were too high.
vi.
There were inadequate landscape
buffers. Suggested putting in trees to replace some of the proposed parking
spaces.
vii.
Referred to Wildlife Trust
comments regarding biodiversity.
viii.
Design out of scale with the area.
ix.
Residents stated the developer had
not engaged with them. They were also concerned there would be no engagement
during construction and occupation (if the application were approved) regarding
issues such as noise, dust and prevention/enforcement
to stop parking on residential roads.
Mr Tzortzoglou (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Daunton (Ward District Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application:
i.
The development would be located:
a.
On a main road/rail route into the city.
b.
Near Fulbourn where there would be 2 housing
developments nearby.
ii.
The development was a large site
and the area could not cope with this level of development.
iii.
Road junctions were at capacity already. The
application would bring infrastructure to a halt. People would have to commute
in but there was no funding mentioned for financial contributions to public
transport. Bus services may be unable to service the site. Road traffic would
increase as people would travel in by car not bike.
iv.
Expressed concern about car parking provision on
site and potential impact on
the local area.
v.
Light pollution would affect rural landscape and
(residential) neighbours.
vi.
The development did not appear to take account of
Fulbourn Design Guide policies.
vii.
Could not support the development in its current
form.
Councillor Williams (Ward District Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application:
i.
Expressed concern about transport impact of site
and s106 planning obligations would not mitigate this.
ii.
The application would not satisfy South
Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan policies TI/2, TI/8
and SC/2.
iii.
The site relied on bus services being available to
transport people to it, but these could not be guaranteed. There was no
mitigation in place to offset expected delays to bus services from road
congestion.
iv.
The local road network could not absorb the extra
traffic from this development. There would also be additional noise and air
pollution.
v.
Expressed concern that commuters would park in
neighbouring residential streets. Parking controls were needed so enforcement
action could be taken.
Councillor D.Smith
(Ward Parish Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Expressed concern about traffic and parking.
ii.
Queried who would undertake the parking surveys,
suggested this should be an independent entity.
iii.
Appropriate crossings were required for bikes to
crossroads, particularly near junctions such as Yarrow Road.
The Committee raised the following concerns in response to the report:
i.
Flooding.
ii.
Sewerage.
iii.
Traffic
and transport (existing congestion and impact on this, public transport
provision, cycle and car parking provision).
iv.
Parking and enforcement action to mitigate impact
of commuters on neighbouring residential areas.
v.
Building overheating.
vi.
Scale and height of development.
vii.
Light pollution.
viii.
Substantial soil excavation would be required
on-site, moved soil would have loose structure and may affect how it could be
used ie potentially unsafe
for platforms to rest on.
ix.
Lack of consultation with residents.
The Interim Team Leader said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The
application had been referred
to the Design Enabling Panel for comment who raised concerns. The
design was changed as a consequence but the revised details did not return to the
Design Enabling Panel due to time constraints before submission of the application.
ii.
Consultation had been undertaken on the application
in lockdown via website and letter drop. Residents had been consulted on a
document produced by the design team. Officers had also published details on the
City Council website.
iii.
The Landscape Officer had reviewed trees proposed
for the site and was satisfied the appropriate species had been recommended.
Mr Tzortzoglou added that residents had an
opportunity to interact via several consultation sessions via Zoom.
iv.
A transport assessment had been submitted that
looked at the cumulative impact of developments in the area. This had been
reviewed by the County Council.
v.
Multi storey access/egress had not been modelled so
its impact on queueing traffic was unknown.
The
Transport Assessment Manager said the Car Parking Management Plan set out
appropriate barriers would be used to minimise queueing.
vi.
There was a condition to ensure sufficient bike
parking capacity and facilities were provided such as Sheffield stands.
vii.
Industry standards would be used to describe
electric vehicle charging points/facilities in future (officer) reports.
viii.
Officers were checking the sewer capacity with
Anglian Water. There should be since 2015, so officers would check if Anglian
Water comments in the Officer’s report were up to date. Anglian Water were
legally obliged to accept sewerage.
ix.
Changes in the Drainage Strategy had resolved
concerns about flooding downstream.
x.
The
Lead Local Flood Authority was satisfied with the Surface Water Drainage
Strategy since changes were made to the previous iteration.
xi.
There was an issue of chalk on the site, this would
cause problems when exposed. Soil stabilisation would occur to ensure platforms
would be stable. Details were set out in the Soil Management Plan.
xii.
Building overheating concerns should be addressed
through sustainable construction techniques such as passive cooling.
The Transport Assessment Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
There was congestion in the area already. The
Applicant was only obliged to fix problems caused by the development, not in
the area as a whole.
ii.
The County Council were looking at mitigation
measures they could recommend. Fulbourn Greenway was expected to be used by
local commuters.
iii.
There were no quick fixes for issues with
junctions.
iv.
People were expected to travel to the site by car,
but it was hoped a modal shift would occur in future to bikes/public transport.
It was hoped the impact of cars would be mitigated by other people walking or
cycling.
v.
The transport cap would be reviewed after phase 1
to see if it was fit for purpose or if the developer had to make amendments for
phase 2 such as providing a ‘works bus’ to encourage
people to commute in.
Mr
Tzortzoglou said measures in place at other sites could be implemented in
Fulbourn such as a shuttlebus and car share club. The Fulbourn site had only
been acquired 5 weeks ago so details had not been included in the Officer’s
report, measures would be set out in future.
vi.
Car parking was provided on-site but the aim was to
discourage car travel. Some funding contributions had been obtained to monitor
the impact of the site on residential areas. The developer was required to
provide a contact to enable
residents to lodge complaints. Funding would then be used (e.g. Traffic Regulation Orders) to seek how to address
issues through resident consultation.
vii.
Plans were in place to review how buses would
service the site as it was recognised the Citi 3 (bus route) could not provide
sufficient capacity.
viii.
Outline planning permission set out how the site
could be used if the second car park was not built ie area could be used in another way.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to include informatives covering:
i.
there should be no occupation on site until there
was adequate sewerage capacity;
ii.
that Officers would write to Anglian Water setting
out drainage concerns should be addressed prior to work starting above ground.
These amendments were carried
by 8 votes to 0.
Councillor Scutt proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include an informative drawing the Applicant’s attention that it was their
responsibility to address concerns about damage to buildings as
a consequence of trees being close to the buildings – soil drying out
leading to subsidence etc.
This amendment was carried
by 8 votes to 0.
Councillor Bradnam proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include an informative requesting the Applicant set up a community liaison
forum during construction and early occupation (if application approved) so
issues could be raised by residents.
This amendment was carried
by 8 votes to 0.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 2
abstentions) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.
Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
The proposed development will result in
unacceptable traffic impacts which will exacerbate existing congestion in the
local and wider areas. The proposals include inadequate mitigation measures in
the submitted Travel Plan to reduce travel to the site by car resulting in a
development that is overly reliant on travel by car. The proposal does not
represent sustainable development as defined by the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 and conflicts with policies S/2, S/3 and TI/2 of the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 which require development to be
designed to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, and promote
sustainable travel appropriate to its location.
ii.
The proposed development, due to its scale and
massing, would result in unacceptable impacts on the surrounding Green Belt and
landscape. The proposal does not represent sustainable development as defined
by the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and conflicts with policies E/3
and NH/8 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 which
seek to mitigate the impact of development adjoining the Green Belt
through landscaping, excavation and high quality design measures and policies
HQ/1 and NH/2 of the Local Plan which seek to preserve or enhance the landscape
character of the area and requires the scale of development to be compatible
with its location in relation to the surrounding area.
Supporting documents: