Agenda item

Description: Full Planning Application for the erection of a mixed use office and conference centre building with associated plant, landscaping and public open space.

Applicant: Astra Zenica

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.         What measures would be taken to put in place a travel management plan to accommodate large numbers of people using the conference facilities?

    ii.         Disabled access plans should be clear, with parking close to the building.

   iii.         Clarification was sought on plans for cycle parking.

  iv.         Signage and navigation to the site should be clear.

    v.         Had thought been given to reducing the massing of the roof?

  vi.         What were the navigation plans between this building and the DISC building?

 vii.         Water use should be considered, could grey water and suds be used for flushing, etc?

viii.         What would the view from Hobson’s Park look like? Concerned that the roof may be prominent.

  ix.         Have the community benefits and links that may be possible with a large lecture theatre been considered?

    x.         The building appeared to be heavily glazed, which was unusual from a climate perspective. It would be useful to have more information on the environmental impact of the glazing.

  xi.         The wooden roof could appear to be abrupt in relation to neighbouring building styles.

 xii.         Roof style could provide cooling for the building.

xiii.         What were the implications of the new rail access at Cambridge South and East West Rail on assumptions about mode of travel?

xiv.         What was being done regarding making safe cycle access easier across busy roads when approaching from West Cambridge?

xv.         The glazing would have implications on the heating/cooling systems. Had the demand for energy been considered, especially in relation to the demand for air conditioning, and how would it be tackled?

xvi.         What were the links with the energy centre on the Biomedical Campus and what would the energy usage be?

xvii.         How light was the roof and how would that contribute towards cooling of the building?

xviii.         How robust was the landscaping and how would it be managed in long term? Once the planting was in place, it must be able to survive.

xix.         How many people would the conference facility accommodate? If 60/70% were local, did the developer anticipate the remaining 30/40% might travel nationally and internationally? Many could use taxis to the site. Had the access and transport implications of the large conference facility been taken into consideration?

xx.         Bus services should be promoted.

xxi.         Sustainable transport strategy and solutions could be developed in coordination with other users of the wider site.

xxii.         Environmental sustainability outlined in the presentation was important and the building should meet the highest environmental standards.

xxiii.         Water efficiency would be crucial to the plans.

xxiv.         Consideration should be given to travel and the extent to which conferences of up to 700 people will be accommodated without causing further congestion on the site.

The Chair thanked the presenters for attending.