Agenda item

Erection of new building for Office/Research and Development use and associated infrastructure and works.

Councillor Pippa Heylings, seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, proposed an amendment to condition G to change the BREEAM requirements from “Very Good” to “Excellent”. The amendment was approved via affirmation and condition G subsequently stated:

“Within 6 months of commencement of development, a BRE issued Design Stage Certificate shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that BREEAM 'Excellent' as a minimum will be met. Where the certificate shows a shortfall in credits for BREEAM 'Excellent', a statement shall be submitted identifying how the shortfall will be addressed. If such a rating is replaced by a comparable national measure of sustainability for building design, the equivalent level of measure shall be applicable to the proposed development.”

Reason: In the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting principles of sustainable construction and efficient use of buildings in accordance with policies CC/3 and CC/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2020.

With the amendment to condition G, the Planning Committee approved the application by affirmation, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The report was presented by the Principal Planner who noted the supplementary update to the report. There were no speakers on the Item, but the Principal Planner acknowledged that a written submission in support of the application had been received.

Members thanked officers for the thorough report and commended the clearly laid out logic behind the weighting of the considerations in the report. The Committee expressed their general hesitance to approve developments on the green belt, but Members felt that, in this case, the benefits of the application outweighed the harms and, in this instance, the development of a greenfield site would not be brought forward as a reason for refusal for a variety of reasons. The siting of the development, in between two existing buildings, meant that the Committee felt that openness of the area would not be compromised in a manner that would give reason to refuse the application and Councillor Dr Richard Williams, who had visited the site, emphasised this point. It was noted that further development on the site would likely be a much greater cause for concern. Members emphasised the importance of preventing unrestricted urban sprawl and incursion into the green belt, but the siting combined with the special nature of the application meant that the Committee’s concerns were allayed for this application. A question was raised on whether this application could set a precedent for future developments to infringe on the green belt, but the Principal Planner quashed these concerns by informing the Committee that the previous applications at the site had been approved for special circumstances and highlighted the fact that it was likely that the area would become a special policy area in the future. Members agreed with the point on special circumstances, noting that the world-leading work undertaken at the Research Park was of great importance to the region and that the positive impacts of the site on the area, including stimulation of employment and the local economy, gave greater weight to the special circumstances of the application. A concern over the flood risk was raised, it was noted that part of the development was in flood risk zones 2 and 3, but the Principal Planner informed the Committee that the works in these zones would be for landscaping and periphery management, with the main built area being in zone 1.  Members did question the extent to which solar panels would be implemented in the development, the Principal Planner informed the Committee that there was a likelihood that solar panels would be utilised on the buildings and noted that the application was focused on delivering a sustainable development, with conditions setting a BREAAM target of “Very Good”. Members acknowledged that serious consideration had been put into the sustainability of the site but felt, given the nature of the development, it should aspire to a BREAAM target of “Excellent”.

Councillor Pippa Heylings, seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, proposed an amendment to condition G to change the BREEAM requirements from “Very Good” to “Excellent”. The amendment was approved via affirmation and condition G subsequently stated:

“Within 6 months of commencement of development, a BRE issued Design Stage Certificate shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that BREEAM 'Excellent' as a minimum will be met. Where the certificate shows a shortfall in credits for BREEAM 'Excellent', a statement shall be submitted identifying how the shortfall will be addressed. If such a rating is replaced by a comparable national measure of sustainability for building design, the equivalent level of measure shall be applicable to the proposed development.”

Reason: In the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting principles of sustainable construction and efficient use of buildings in accordance with policies CC/3 and CC/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2020.

With the amendment to condition G, the Planning Committee approved the application by affirmation, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. The Delivery manager informed the Committee that, due to the amendment to the condition, the approval would have to be referred to the Secretary of State.