Agenda item

Proposal: Submission of details required by condition 27 (Lighting Scheme) of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA) 

Councillor Flaubert joined the meeting before the start of the consideration of this planning application.

 

The Committee received an application for the submission of details required by condition 27 (Lighting Scheme) of the deemed planning consent associated with the Network Rail (Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements) Order 2022 (Local Planning Authority Reference 21/02957/TWA).

 

Elliot Stamp (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner said the following:

      i.         It was a level crossing which crossed the guided busway to the recreation area, not an underpass.

    ii.         There were solar light studs proposed to be in place up to the level crossing. There were streetlights along the busway path. 

   iii.         Unable to advise on lumen levels of the solar studs but noted that the Environmental Health Team had reviewed the details and had not objected.

  iv.         Noted concerns which had been raised regarding the speed at which bikes / e-scooters travelled on paths. The path was narrow and would be used by pedestrians which should encourage low speeds by cyclists. No speed limits were proposed for cyclists / e-scooters etc.

    v.         Officers had encouraged the Applicant to put forward a scheme using stud lighting. The Applicant had not been asked to provide information about street lighting. As this element of the site was within the Green Belt and an area of ecological importance stud lighting was considered more appropriate than conventional street lighting.

  vi.         If people did not want to use the path with solar studs, there was an alternative route available via the Guided Busway, which had street lighting along it.

 vii.         Officers had not asked for an assessment to be undertaken of solar stud lights versus street lighting and their impacts on biodiversity. The solar studs and general lighting for the station had been assessed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer who was satisfied with the details submitted recommending discharge of the condition.

viii.         The Wayfinding Strategy had already been agreed as part of the landscaping condition but noted the Applicant’s Representative (present at the meeting) would note Councillor comments about ensuring that the wayfinding signage included information about alternative lit routes through the site.

  ix.         Agreed with a Councillor’s comment that there would be light from the streetlights on the busway path which spilled on to the area with solar light studs.

    x.         The path was proposed to be maintained by the City Council; therefore repair / maintenance / replacement of the solar studs would be managed by the City Council and these obligations would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.

  xi.         The solar light studs would have bat hats on them.

 xii.         Camcycle’s objection stated that they wanted the path to be lit with something more substantial than solar light studs (for example street lighting) for safety purposes enabling cyclists to use and access the new train station.

xiii.         The Case Officer had assessed the proposal and considered lighting through solar light studs acceptable. It distills to a difference of opinion between Officers and Camcycle.

xiv.         Officers had considered Local Transport Note (LTN)1/20 and made a balanced assessment based on the sensitive ecological nature of the site.     

 

 

The Delivery Manager made the following points in response to concerns expressed by Members during debate:

        i.       The application was granted permission (resulting in a deemed planning permission/consent) under the Transport and Works Act Order in December 2022 following a public inquiry in November 2021.

      ii.        At the public inquiry the Inspector would have heard available evidence and taken a balanced view. The report established guidance and parameters upon which the future detailed design proposals would need to adhere to including the Cambridge South Station Design Principles.

    iii.        With regards to lighting, evidence reflecting the needs of users would have been taken into consideration at the inquiry including the biodiversity and sensitivity with the site being in the Green Belt. ‘Lighting would be to the minimum necessary to provide safe conditions and will be in accordance with relevant guidance set out in the ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light: 2020-GN01/20’. It was the Officer’s view that this approach had been followed in assessing the lighting proposals.

 

A vote on the Officer’s recommendation to approve and discharge condition 21/02957/COND27 with delegated authority to Officers to carry through minor amendments was lost by 5 votes in favour to 6 against.

 

The Strategic Sites Manager offered the following summary of reasons to defer determination of the application reflecting Members’ debate during the meeting:

i.               to allow for the further consideration of alternative lighting proposals which consider the following issues:

a.    pedestrian and cycle safety including anti-social behaviour; and

b.    biodiversity impact.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes in favour to 2 against with 1 abstention) to defer the application to allow further consideration of alternative lighting proposals to consider the following issues:

i.               pedestrian and cycle safety including anti-social behaviour; and

ii.             biodiversity impact.