Agenda item

Submission of details required by condition 22 (Cycle Parking: 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 Committee received a submission of details required by condition 22 (Cycle Parking: 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 Principal Planner presented their report, highlighting the following amendments:

      i.         Two late representations had been received

    ii.         Amended plans submitted to rectify issue with scale and mislabelling on the plans.

   iii.         Clarification of reason for partial discharge

  iv.         Error on par 8.1 (third bullet point) which should have read – “Request that the number of spaces provide on the eastern side is increased above 500 as their will likely be more demand on the eastern side from CBC staff”.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident on behalf of a Trumpington Residents Association (TRA).

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

      i.         Supported the station as a destination station for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It would help to reduce traffic on the roads as the Campus developed.

    ii.         Hobson’s Park (the Park), which is in the Green Belt, on the western side of the station was a “tranquil place” in a busy area; confirmed by the Planning Inspector. Tried to limit the station’s impact on the Park and to get the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to live up to its responsibilities in delivering the station.

   iii.         A 20- to 30-metre-wide strip was effectively being taken out of the Park from the Guided Busway to the station on the western side of the railway, this being the gap between the new shared use path to the station and the shared use path to the Campus alongside the Guided Busway. The largest of the construction compounds would be in the Park until 2025.

  iv.         Objected at the Public Inquiry to Network Rail’s proposal for cycle parking spaces, not only because it took space out of the Park, but to the hundreds of cycle movements each day through the Park on the new shared use path which threatened the very tranquillity.

    v.         Questioned why is it was proposed to have so many spaces on the western side forcing cyclists to leave the station and cross Addenbrooke’s Bridge on an already very busy shared use path to get to their destination in the Campus? This did not make sense.

  vi.         Network Rail had not made their case for 1,000 spaces evenly split between the east and the west. This was not a product of the Transport Assessment that Network Rail referred to, but an assumption made in that assessment. Also, the trip destination information which the Transport Assessment did contain supported a 30/70 split west / east, not 50/50.

 vii.         The application also conflicted with the recommendation made by the Planning Inspector following the Public Inquiry, which cast doubt on the need for 1,000 spaces in total, particularly the 500 proposed on the western side. It also conflicted with the Secretary of State’s decision which followed the Inspector’s recommendation.

viii.         Network Rail undertook at the Public Inquiry to carry out further studies to inform the decision about the number of spaces at the station and their east/west split, a fact recorded in their Closing Statement and in the Inspector’s Report. Yet the application made no mention of these further studies or their findings. Therefore, the application was incomplete.

  ix.         It was for these reasons that the TRA objected to this application and asked the Committee not to agree it in the form proposed but to place a limit of no more than 300 cycle parking spaces in the western station building.

    x.         If, in the event, a total of 1,000 spaces proved to be necessary, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus should provide the land necessary to allow additional spaces on the eastern side of the station. Did not support the argument that there is not sufficient land.

  xi.         Anyone looking down on the station site from Addenbrooke’s busway bridge could see the amount of undeveloped land within the Campus immediately adjacent to the station and nearby. The owners of that land should be pressed to provide the land necessary for 200 extra spaces. It was after all in their interests, the station was being provided primarily for their benefit.

 xii.         Network Rail sought to bring in arguments on the proposed design of the station in aid of its cycle parking application. Yet it was Network Rail that had chosen to base its design on 500 spaces in the western station building which the Planning Inspector made clear was probably an over-estimate as was the 1,000 spaces total. A conclusion with which the Secretary of State agreed.

 

Elliot Stamp, Network Rail (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Officer said the following:

      i.         It was possible to include an informative that a suitable locking arrangement on the two-tier stands be added to the discharge of condition approval.

    ii.         Half height Sheffield stands referenced in the report were suitable for parking cargo and larger bikes. They offered floor anchor points providing alternative locking options.

   iii.         CCTV would cover all cycle parking; stores were close to the entrance of the building. Details in the management plan would provide information on how people obtain access to CCTV records, if their cycle should be stolen, and should get in touch with the operator of the station. 

  iv.         Noted the concerns raised regarding public access to CCTV. It was yet to be determined how this could be accessed, whether a key fob, code, or an app but this will come forward as part of a future application.

    v.         Cycle parking was covered by a canopy which would continue to the entrance.

  vi.         Within Local Plan policy there was no standard minimum requirement for larger cycles parking on site, but officers believed that the 7% parking supplied was adequate. Cycle parking would be on a first come first served basis.

 vii.         The embankment shown on the plans was the existing embankment part of the guided bus way bridge.

viii.         The trip budget was undertaken as part of the transport assessment, through this the number of cycle spaces was agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council. This had set out there would be a greater need for cycle parking on the western side rather than the eastern side. People using the eastern side would leave their cycles at their destination rather than at the station. 

  ix.         The eastern side of the station had vehicular access, providing taxi drop offs, blue badge parking leaving no capacity for further cycle parking. The length of the canopy of the eastern side was getting up to where the maximum envelope ended.

    x.         The parameter plan showed the maximum land area which Network Rail were permitted to build over under the TWAO and the deemed planning permission. This did not take up all the area of the Park: the canopy was narrower than it could have been. The applicant had managed to provide all the spaces with the minimal take up of land.

  xi.         Confirmed there was a guard rail on both the east and west side of the roof.

 xii.         There were access routes for the cyclists in Trumpington, along the guided bus route. There would be a new trail for cyclists and pedestrians providing access as part of the landscaping condition. On the opposite side to Trumpington, there would be access across the guided busway bridge, the biomedical campus with access off Francis Crick Avenue.

xiii.         No provisions had been made for scooters.

xiv.         The Transport Assessment stated that 95% of users would access the station using sustainable transport means. Approximately 790 daily cycle trips by 2031.  

xv.         The secure public parking would be open to the public but how that would work was yet to be determined.

xvi.         Noted the comment that signage needed to be in place before the site opened and the need for signage regarding cargo bikes parking spaces.

xvii.         Acknowledged the comment it was likely that payment would be required for the secure parking which should not be excessive and would only be accessible to those who could afford it.

xviii.         It was possible to bring a cycle through the station from one side to the other, all the stairs had a cycle rail. The lifts could hold two people with two large bikes.

xix.         The size of the green roof would not change if there were fewer cycling spaces on site, this would be an empty canopy, as all cycling parking was under the canopy; this was the best use of space.

xx.         Signage was part of the wayfinding strategy which in turn was part of the landscape condition.

 

Councillor Bradnam proposed the following informative following Member debate:

      i.         Requiring certain locking arrangement for the two-tier bikes

    ii.         Procedure was put into place for the public to access CTTV quickly and effectively. 

 

 

The Committee:

 

      i.         Unanimously resolved to approve and partially discharge planning condition 22 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 Cycle Parking Management Strategy submitted for the local planning authority’s approval to provide clarification on the security details relating to timely accessibility of CCTV records; the secure cycle storage facility (including how this accessed/secured); the method of operation and accessible locking devices on the two-tier racks.

Signage to be dealt with through the wayfinding strategy and for cargo bikes, to be in place before it becomes operational.