Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements and noted that site visits had been conducted on 01 November 2023 for all the applications on the Agenda. The Delivery Manager informed the Committee that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 had been given royal assent and that all officer reports and recommendations had been reviewed in light of the introduction of the Act, with no changes being required.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Bill Handley and Dr Tumi Hawkins. Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup was present as a substitute.

1.         Disclosable pecuniary interests (“DPI”)

A  DPI is where a committee member or his/her spouse or partner has any kind of beneficial interest in the land under consideration at the meeting.

 2.        Non-disclosable pecuniary interests

These are interests that are pecuniary involving a  personal financial benefit or detriment but do not come within the definition of a DPI.  An example would be where a member of their family/close friend (who is not their spouse or partner) has such an interest.

3.         Non-pecuniary interests

Where the interest is not one which involves any personal financial benefit or detriment to the Councillor but arises out of a close connection with someone or some  body /association.  An example would be membership of a sports committee/ membership of another council which is involved in the matter under consideration.

With respect to Minute 6, Councillor Peter Fane declared that he had formed a view on the application as local Member and had called-in the application, thus he would withdraw from the Committee and speak as local Member.

With respect to Minutes 7 & 8, Councillor Geoff Harvey declared that he was a resident of Great Abington but was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 10, Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was local Member for some cases listed in the report.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 11 October as a correct record.

Councillor Heather Williams requested that Minute 6 be amended to reflect that the decision to pause CSET Phase 2 had been taken by the GCP Board, rather than by the Joint Assembly as recorded. With the amendment, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2023 as a correct record.

Part demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings for research and development including co-working space, cafe and gym (Use Class E commercial, business and services), installation of plant, car parking provision of cycle parking, public realm improvements, and associated works to the Way.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to a number of changes to the wording of conditions, and the addition of a condition regarding delivery hours. Officers were granted delegated authority to produce the wording for the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Committee.

The Principal Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that a third-party representation in objection to the application had been received, and that condition 10 was amended to remove “shall commence” from the first line of the condition wording. In response to Member questions, officers advised that changes to the levels of car parking had been made during the design process in response to comments from the Council’s Design Team, and that more parking spaces could not be secured without utilising multi-level car parking. Questions were raised on how the Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan in condition 27 would be monitored and the Principal Transport Officer (Cambridgeshire County Council) informed the Committee that annual monitoring reports on local parking were to be provided for 5 years as part of the Travel Plan, with £10,000 being requested within the s106 agreement for use in traffic management. Officers confirmed that parking on The Way itself could not be controlled by local authorities as it was a private road.

The Committee was addressed by an objector, Sarah Brock. The agent of the applicant, Amy Robinson and the applicant, Ariel Levy, addressed the Committee in support of the application and answered a number of Member questions which covered:

·       Parking- the applicant clarified that increased car parking would require another storey and the proposed parking scheme was in response to pre-application advice from officers. The applicant advised that transport and parking restrictions would be included as part of tenants’ lease agreements, giving the developers a mechanism to enforce parking restrictions, details of which were to be include in the Travel Plan as required by Condition 27.

·       Noise from equipment- the Committee noted that a noise assessment had been undertaken and condition 32 had been included in response to this.

·       Minibus service details- the Committee noted that Condition 26 required the submission of details of the proposed minibus service, and the applicant advised that the intention was for the service to include Whittlesford Station.

·       Public use of café and gym- the applicant advised that both the gym and café were being provided primarily for R&D employees working on the site rather than as a commercial enterprise and, whilst they were both accessible to the public, these facilities were to be managed in a manner that would try to limit increased traffic in and around the site.

·       Animal testing- the Committee noted that potential animal testing on the was not a material consideration, and the applicant advised that the site itself was not compliant with the regulations around animal testing and thus no such testing could occur.

Councillor David Brock of Fowlmere Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council. The Committee was informed that the Parish Council objected to the proposal as it was felt that the issues raised in the Parish Council’s consultation response had not been addressed. Members enquired as to which conditions the Parish Council held concerns over and were informed that conditions 6, 8 (iv), 12,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Change of use of 0.91ha of agricultural land including Barn 4 to drive thru phlebotomy (blood) testing unit (Use Class Ee), remodelled access, vehicle circulation space, parking, footpath link, dropped kerbs, landscaping and associated infrastructure at Magog Court.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of two conditions, one regarding sheltered cycle storage and the other regarding an operational management plan. Officers were granted delegated authority to produce the wording for the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

By 8 votes to none, with 1 abstention, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Committee.

Councillor Peter Fane withdrew from the Committee, in line with his declaration of interest. The Committee agreed, by affirmation, to the appointment of Councillor Geoff Harvey as Vice-Chair for the duration of the item.

The Area Manager presented the report and provided update that an email from the objecting speaker had been circulated to Members and it and its contents had been published on the planning register. In response a question, the Area Manager, highlighting paragraphs 10.1-10.22 of the report, provided clarity on why the works carried out on site constituted a building which had implemented its use as an agricultural building. The Senior Planning Lawyer confirmed that the structure was a building in planning terms and that the change of use could go forward. Officers provided further clarity that:

·       Condition 17 ensured that the premises would be used for Class E(e) and no other purpose.

·       The Transport Assessment was based on the usage at the existing Newmarket Road site, the facility that the application was seeking to relocate.

·       A cycle store was included as part of the site plan, and that it would be appropriate to add a condition that required the submission and approval of details of covered cycle parking.

·       Given the use of the building proposed, officers did not consider the use of solar panels were appropriate for the proposal.

The Committee was addressed by Sarah Nicholas, of Cambridge Past, Present and Future, who objected to the application. The applicant, Carin Charlton (Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust), addressed the Committee in support of the applicant and, with support from Michael Hendry (agent of the applicant), answered Member questions. Members were advised that:

·       A drive through service had been identified as the best way to provide blood testing services to patients, and that there was need to relocate the current site.

·       A permanent facility would help the clinical staff streamline their service and measures such pre-booked appointments only would limit waiting times and associated impacts.

·       The facility was predominantly for NHS operations and patients would require referral from a GP or the Hospital to attend the facility.

·       The expected level of use was the same as the levels at the existing Newmarket Road site (approx. 300 patients per day).

·       Provision would be made for cycle, motorcycle and pedestrian access.

Councillor Greg Price of Great Shelford Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council, who had revised their support for the application and objected to the application due to highway safety concerns. Councillor Barbara Kettel of Stapleford Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council, who objected to the application. Councillor Peter Fane addressed the Committee as local Member and objected to the application. In response to a question, Councillor Fane clarified that he felt a change of use application was inappropriate for the site and that a full application should be brought forward.

In the debate, discussion was held over the status of the structure as a building and the commencement of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Enlargement of previously permitted photovoltaic array on barn roof

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of a condition requiring details of the installation of the photovoltaics to be submitted in writing to the local planning authority within three months of the date of the decision notice being issued. Officers were granted delegated authority to produce the wording for the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

The Senior Planner presented the report and provided update that a written submission from the local Members had been circulated. Officers clarified that there would be no harm to the structure of the building as a result of the proposal, and that the recommendation of refusal was based on grounds of harm to the setting and significance of the listed building and resulting harm to the Conservation Area. In response to a question, officers confirmed that the pantiles on the building were not original materials.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Jeremy Lodge, who supported the application. In response to questions, the agent advised that various alternative sustainability measures had been explored, referencing the site history, and that the solar panels would be connected to the grid. Councillor Henry Batchelor addressed the Committee as local Member (on behalf of both local Members) in support of the application. In response to a question, Councillor Batchelor clarified that the local Member support was based, from a planning perspective, on paragraph 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

In the debate, the Committee acknowledged the reasons for the recommendation of refusal but felt that, on balance, the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harms and consequently the application should be approved. Members gave the following reasons for their view:

·       Paragraphs 158 a) and c) of the NPPF.

·       The connection to the grid providing a public benefit.

·       The conservation benefits of sustainable development, and the Council’s policies that encouraged this.

·       Following the site visit and consideration of the application, opinion was there was minimal harm to the listed building and Conservation Area.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of a condition requiring details of the installation of the photovoltaics to be submitted in writing to the local planning authority within three months of the date of the decision notice being issued. Officers were granted delegated authority to produce the wording for the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Enlargement of previously permitted photovoltaic array on barn roof

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planner clarified that the application was to assess the harm to the fabric of the listed building.

Councillor Dr Martin Cahn, seconded by Councillor Peter Fane, proposed that the Committee move to a vote. The Committee agreed to the proposal by affirmation.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Report to follow

The Delivery Manager presented the report. Members requested that information on average case time be included in future reports. Further request was raised that when Members alerted the Principal Planning Compliance Manager to cases they wished to seek update on, there be a mechanism be put in place to clarify if the case is a local issue that only requires the attention of local Members or if the wider Committee Membership should be made aware of the case. In response to Member comment, the Delivery Manager advised that a review of standard conditions was underway to ensure enforceability and that bespoke conditions were referred to the Compliance Team to ensure that conditions were enforceable.

The Committee noted the report.

Report to follow

The Delivery Manager introduced the report and the Committee noted the report.