Agenda item

Description: Comprehensive phased low carbon development for mixed "clean-tech" innovation employment uses, residential and associated uses in accordance with a site wide masterplan.

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers and comments were supplied, but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

                        i.         The vision for a more permeable and connected site, along with the significant increase in greenery, was welcomed.

                      ii.         Clarification was sought on what specific measures would be implemented to encourage and support employees to use alternative modes of transport instead of private cars.

                     iii.         Would there be a traffic to work management plan in place?

                    iv.         Expressed concern about displacement parking outside of the site.

                      v.         What provisions would be made to ensure full accessibility for disabled individuals, both in terms of arriving at the site and navigating through the employment and community areas?

                    vi.         Should consider providing infrastructure for the parking and safe use of e-bikes and e-scooters on and through the site.

                   vii.         Would like to have more information on the community purposes in the two buildings on either side of the green cut through referenced in the presentation.

                 viii.         Would contractors’ vehicles be permitted to park on site during construction?

                    ix.         How dependent was the proposals on the removal of the sewage works and the Hartree development. Could the proposed development proceed independently if these did not occur?

                      x.         If the sewage works remained in place, odour mitigation measures should be implemented.

                    xi.         Would be helpful to provide more information on the open spaces especially in the housing area.

                   xii.         Should consider the safety of those walking through the dark closed office zones at night to access the housing area; how would this be addressed?

                 xiii.         What traffic calming measures would be in place to reduce traffic speed on those roads which did permit cars on site?

                 xiv.         When the application came forward to Committee it would be useful to see visuals of the different heights of the buildings, the distance between each building and how they would sit in the surrounding landscape.

                  xv.         Welcomed the mixed use on site, the guided bus stop, road crossings and the opening of the drain.

                 xvi.         What plans were in place to comply with the trip budgets referenced in the Area Action Plan and emerging Local Plan? 

               xvii.         Would recommend the installation of a changing place toilet on site to be accessed by all users.

              xviii.         The presentation had demonstrated how much the workplace had evolved in recent years and described the scheme as fun, which was welcomed and should be embraced.

                 xix.         Long term maintenance for all the planting planned throughout the site needed to be considered.

                  xx.         The presentation's reference to inequality and social and economic factors, all needed to create a good society, but what plans were in place to action this?

                 xxi.         Reference had been made to ‘variety’ throughout the site, how would this variety be delivered?

               xxii.         Would question whether the Area Action Plan (3.5), Open Space for Informal Open Space and Play would be met.

              xxiii.         Given the ongoing housing crisis in Cambridge, it was essential that the target of delivering 500 homes on the site was achieved. If this target cannot be met, an explanation should be provided outlining the reasons for the shortfall.

             xxiv.         Welcomed the hub space. 

               xxv.         When considering the trip budget, it would be helpful to explain existing movement and then proposed changes using the transport movement hierarchy which started with pedestrians.

             xxvi.         It was possible to negotiate with the train companies a discounted rate for the final site. Stansted Airport had negotiated a 70% discount on train fares for staff working at the airport.

            xxvii.         Would highlight the advantages of modular construction, particularly for laboratories. Assembly in a factory environment enabled faster, more accurate installation on site.

          xxviii.         Would designated wildlife corridors be included on site?

             xxix.         Would the site be able to accommodate future light rail should such a system be installed to this part of Cambridge.

               xxx.         Further detail was requested on the current number of parking spaces and the proposed provision, particularly in relation to the anticipated 5,000-person occupancy and the number of jobs expected at full site capacity.

             xxxi.         Was there phased build plan for the housing on site, when would building work start?

            xxxii.         Were there any plans to work with Cambridge Regional College and Cambridge Room?