Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > 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)
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: