Agenda item

Submission of details required by condition 17 (Detailed design approval: Cambridge South Station) for phase 4 of the development of the deemed planning  consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA)

The application sought approval of the details required to discharge condition 17 of the deemed planning permission linked to the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order. The Transport Works Act Order (TWAO) application and the deemed planning permission granted by the Secretary of State in December 2022 related to a cross boundary scheme which had one permission crossing both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Condition 17 fell wholly within the Cambridge City Council administrative area.

 

The Principal Planning Officer updated their report by referring to the Amendment Sheet highlighting the following:

      i.         Minor change to officer report to explain that the secondary means of escape (SME) bridge falls within parameter plans.

    ii.         Clarification of reason for partial discharge.

 

Emma Smith, of Network Rail (Applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Chair asked Emma Smith to clarify the following points.

      i.         What would the travel route be from side of the station to the other if cycle parking were not available on one side?

    ii.         Could the applicant confirm that the materials used on site would allow full mobile phone access and will not block mobile phone signals?

   iii.         There would be a risk of the sedum dying in very dry weather. Was there a mechanism in place which would allow the roof being watered in such circumstances?

  iv.         Would Network Rail share the data on the monitoring of the grey water scheme on how the green and blue roofs were working and the transport movements taking place through the station?

 

The response given was as follows:

      i.         If there was no space on one side of the station, rather than entering the station, would advise to use the road, rather than through the ticket gates, which would be the easiest way.

    ii.         Believed that the designers would have looked at the operability, materials, and the usage, as the station would not have a ticket office. There would be a reliance on traveller use of mobile phones and other devices. Would take away the specific details concerning the steel to investigate this further.

   iii.         Could not comment on the irrigation of the sedum roof. As part of the station design it would had been investigated how the station would be maintained, so it should have been considered.

  iv.         Confirmed that data requested would be provided to officers.

 

In response to Member’s questions and comments the Principal Planning Officer and the Strategic Sites Manager said the following:

      i.         The toilets inside of the station would be publicly accessible, although only from inside of the barriers. Did not have the details of the access arrangements for this matter.

    ii.         The glass on the over bridge was slighted textured but would allow views from either side.

   iii.         It was the intention the hard and soft landscaping condition would be dealt with under officer delegated powers as with all other conditions relating to the station.

  iv.         If Members felt that particular conditions would be of interest to the Committee then they could deploy their call-in powers under the JDCC’s Terms of Reference, giving the reason and the planning grounds upon which, that request was based.

    v.         The station roof entrance was described as a bull nose end, the roof profile was thick due to its functionality, the top element would protrude slightly further out casting a shadow making the roof line appear slenderer.

  vi.         Suggested an informative for directional signage on the station building to highlight accessible public toilets at the station.

 vii.         There was a separate condition to deal with lighting (considering light spillage). Draft information on this matter had been reviewed and shared with environmental health and ecology.

viii.         Had no detailed plans on the installation of the cycle rails inside of the station. These could be provided as part of a later submission due to this application being for a partial discharge.

  ix.         The SME bridge was substantially smaller than the bespoke structure proposed under the TWAO. While it was disappointing that it was an ‘off the shelf product’, work had been undertaken with the Council’s ‘urban design team to ensure the materials would respond to the materials throughout the rest of the station building. Satisfied that impact was acceptable.    

    x.         There would be a real sense of space when inside the station, the frame of the building would be visible. The curved concreate stairs would be covered in an orange material for visual impact.

  xi.         Officers were currently working on discharge of the public art condition.

 xii.         The applicant had appointed a public art consultation, but an artist had not yet been appointed. No public art projects had been identified yet.

xiii.         There would be one toilet on the Hobson Park side of the station, with the changing places toilet and four further toilets on the eastern side.

xiv.         The main roof of the station would be a sedum roof due to the curved design and proximity to the railway for lower maintenance requirements.

xv.         The canopies were blue and green roofs with railings for access, with drainage which could hold water in cartons; these roofs would be covered in biodiverse planting. The planting would come forward as part of the landscape condition.

xvi.         Could not confirm the type of steel used. The station building would be a timber structure. Would assume that mobile phones would be able to be used inside the building and that the materials used in the construction would not interfere with telephone signals.

xvii.         Security of access would be considered under the landscaping condition.

xviii.         Could confirm that the use of bollards had been proposed around the eastern forecourt to prevent vehicular access. Security had been considered by the applicant as a separate requirement.

xix.         The provision of a bus service from the station to the hospital fell outside the scope of the Committee. There had been discussions with Addenbrookes hospital about the provision of shuttle buses, but it was unlikely that this would occur.

 

The Committee:

 

      i.         Unanimously resolved to approve and partially discharge condition 17 of 21/02957/TWA with delegated authority to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair to settle the wording of an appropriate informative covering the following the engagement of appropriate directional signage for users of the toilet facilities and appropriate placement of such signage around the building.