Agenda item

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, 26, 28 and 31 were of concern to the Parish Council, in addition to car parking.

Officers provided the following points of clarification:

·       Condition 8 (iv) was to be amended to have the wording “Please include wording that” removed from the start of the second sentence as it was a typo.

·       Condition 12 required the submission of details which development would then be carried out in accordance with. For changes to be made to the development at a later date (such as to the colour of the heat pumps), the applicant would have to apply to vary the details, there were no conditions removing permitted development rights for changes to plant but that these details needed to be submitted for approval.

·       Condition 26 requested the details of the minibus service, including the number of services and locations served, which were to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

·       Condition 27 would require the details of the Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan to be submitted and agreed. Members noted the comments of the applicant regarding parking enforcement, and the request for £10,000 from the County Transport Team to be held in case a need traffic or parking mitigation measures arose. If required a feedback mechanism could be included in the management plan condition.

·       Condition 28 required the submission of details for the street furniture and artwork but did not specify that it was to be retained thereafter. Members were advised that such wording would be unusual for such a condition but could be added if the Committee felt it was appropriate.

·       Condition 31 specified hours for demolition work and plant or power operated machinery operation, rather than hours of use for the site. The previous permission for the site (S/0752/95/F) had specified hours of delivery and noise produce by machinery but did not specify hours of use for the site.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams left the meeting during the debate.

In the debate, the Members agreed that the principle of development was acceptable and noted the comments made in the Design Review Panel Appendix. Officers provided clarity over how Condition 26 would ensure that an appropriate minibus would be secured, taking on board the comments of the Committee, and that the agreed service(s) would be maintained unless agreed otherwise.

Hours of delivery and use were discussed, and officers informed the Committee that operational hours had not been restricted in the 1995 permission S/0752/95/Fand given that the proposal did not include a change of use, officers were of the view it would be inappropriate to restrict hours of operation. Officers advised that the wording from the 1995 permission regarding HGV delivery hours could be included in the conditions.

Concerns over car parking and the details of the Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan were raised. Members requested that a requirement feedback mechanism to be included in condition 27 and officers advised that wording similar to that used in Condition 18 (iv) h could be included. Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Peter Sandford, proposed a motion to not delegate the approval of submitted details required by Condition 27 to officers and instead require it to come back to the Committee for approval, if the application was approved. Following a debate of the motion, the Committee voted against the motion by 6 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Geoff Harvey, Dr Lisa Redrup and Judith Rippeth) to 3 (Councillors Heather Williams, Peter Sandford and Eileen Wilson).

The Delivery Manager summarised the changes to the conditions made during the meeting:

·       The minor amendment to the wording of Condition 8 (iv).

·       The minor amendment to the wording of Condition 10.

·       The inclusion of a part vi to Condition 27 with the following wording:

“vi) the inclusion of a feedback mechanism to the Local Planning Authority (and Local Highways Authority), allowing for the alteration of working methods / management prescriptions, should the monitoring deem it necessary.”

·       The addition of the wording “and maintained thereafter” to the end of Condition 28.

·       The addition of a condition to restrict HGV delivery times using the wording from Condition 13 of S/0752/95/F.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the changes.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Committee.