Agenda item

Outline application for the development of the TWI campus (including means of access) for use by TWI (comprising but not limited to a range of related uses including office and laboratory space, and ancillary facilities including conferencing and non-residential education/training uses) and/or for Research and Development purposes (Use Class E(g)(ii)), following the erection of two new buildings centred off the central service spine (B4 and B5), one building (B6) immediately to the north, and an extension to the existing engineering hall (B3) (with a combined floor area up to 31,500m2 (GEA) excluding plant), the reconfiguration and external works to the Bevan Braithwaite building, central service spine and the servicing yard, and the provision of a decked car park to the north, surface car parking and cycle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure (following the phased demolition of a number of buildings, namely BBH, Robert Jenkins, Resonance Shed and Trevor Gooch comprising 10,185m2 (GEA)) with all other matters, namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved.

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Heather Williams joined the Committee

The Chair noted that the Committee had visited the site on 4 October 2023. The Area Team Leader presented the report and provided the following updates to the report:

• The Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly had met on 7 September 2023 and it was confirmed at the meeting that work on Cambridge South East Transport (CSET) Phase 2, referenced in paragraphs 10.133-34 of the report, had been paused. Officers noted this but as it was a “pause” and given the length of time the development was anticipated to take based on the phasing programme (circa 10+ years), it was not considered that this affected the financial contributions requested in these paragraphs.

• An inaccuracy had been identified in the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) that was last published (Rev B), in which the AMS showed all of the trees of G50 adjacent to the B3 extension proposed as being removed. However, officers identified that two of these trees were being shown as retained on the replacement tree planting strategy and the applicant had confirmed that these two trees were to be retained. In light of this, paragraphs 3.4 and 10.87 of the report should say “removal of 23no.” rather than “25no.”.

Councillor Geoff Harvey left the meeting

In response to Member questions, officers provided clarity on the following considerations:

• Heads of Terms and CSET funding- comment was made that the wording in the Heads of Terms which referenced CSET should state “or alternatives if required” in order to secure transport funding in case the CSET proposals were not delivered.

• Impact on views from the Church of St Mary the Virgin  (Great Abington)- officers advised that the view from the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin had, in agreement with Conservation officers, not been included as a key view in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Conservation Team had not raised the proposal as having any impact on the heritage asset following their site visits and consideration of the proposal.

• Noise impact- Members made reference to the concerns over noise raised by Little Abington Parish Council (paragraph 9.64) and officers advised that a noise assessment had been submitted with the application and referred to condition 18 which addressed noise mitigation.

• Building heights- officers advised that the Outline consent would prescribe the maximum height of development above ordnance datum and that the reserved matters stage would present details of the scale of buildings. Members enquired as to if it would be possible to lower buildings through excavation and, in response, officers advised that this could be proposed at the reserved matters stage.

• Historic England- Officers advised that Historic England had made no substantial comment on the application and had advised that conservation matters should be considered by officers of the Council.

• Policy E/15(3) of the Local Plan- Officers advised that harm to the surrounding countryside had been acknowledged but that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harms and thus the balance of material considerations had led to an officer recommendation of approval.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Justin Bainton of Carter Jonas, who responded to questions regarding pre-application engagement with local stakeholders by the applicant, drainage management and excavation required for development. Further clarity was provided by both the agent and officers in response to questions on public access to the site and the proposals for tree planting. Councillor Tony Orgee of Great Abington Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council. Councillor Orgee responded to questions regarding building heights and meetings held between the Parish Council and applicant. Officers provided clarity over the changes to the proposed maximum heights made between the Design Review Panel stage and submission of the application. Jessica Ashbridge, Parish Clerk, addressed the Committee on behalf of Little Abington Parish Council.

In the debate, the Committee agreed that the principle of development for the site was acceptable, noting the significance of Granta Park as an Established Employment Area and the economic benefits of the proposal. The maximum building heights and any harm arising from the scale of the proposed parameters were discussed. Impact on heritage assets were noted but Members stated that the less than substantial harm was outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, with the development potentially strengthening mitigation in some areas. The visual impact on the landscape was discussed, with some Members stating that the harm was minimal with the proposed mitigation and others expressing a view that the proposed parameters would lead to unacceptable levels of harm. The Committee noted that details of scale and massing would be addressed at the reserved matters stage. Concerns were raised over the loss of oak and maple trees detailed in the proposal and officers advised that the details of planting would be secured by reserved matters, with it being inappropriate to condition a direct replacement of the trees referenced at outline consent. The Committee agreed to add an informative which captured the desire to see at least 8 oak and 2 maple trees to be planted and maintained in an area of the site that was not part of future development plans to mitigate biodiversity losses.

The Committee agreed that the transport obligation in the Heads of Terms should make reference to alternatives to CSET.

By 8 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Lisa Redrup, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford and Eileen Wilson) votes to 1(Councillor Heather Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.