Agenda item

Submission of details required by condition 21 (Strategic Design Guide) of outline permission S/4329/18/OUT

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the full discharge of planning condition S/4329/18/COND21 (subject to minor amendments to the Design Guide post committee decision that are not material to the outcome of the document delegated to officers), in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Bill Handley withdrew from the Committee, in line with his Declaration of Interest

The Principal Planner (Strategic Sites), James Tipping, presented the report. In responses to Member questions, officers provided the following clarity:

·       That the application before the Committee was to discharge condition 21 of the outline consent (S/4329/18/OL), which required the submission of a Design Guide, rather than approve the details of the Design Guide itself.

·       That a Design Code defines the precise details of a development, whereas a Design Guide is guidance only and allows for a level of flexibility. The Committee was advised that the outline consent required Development Briefs and Reserved Matters applications to secure the precise details of the development as it came forward.

·       The images of roofscapes in the presentation were precedent images of the types of roofscapes that could be used on the site, rather than being the proposed roofscapes for the development.

·       The Design Guide provided the Development Principles that were set out in the Development Specification document approved under the outline consent. Members were advised that the “musts” and “must nots” would need to be complied with in the reserved matters applications, as per the wording of condition 21 of the outline consent, and thus would be enforceable.

·       Development Briefs would provide more fixed detail for specific parts of the wider development.

·       The Design Guide would be maintained in perpetuity. The minor amendments could be made after a permission was granted, but wholesale changes may require a new application to vary the condition. A review mechanism was in place within the Design Guide that would allow for minor updates if required, allowing for the development to stay up to date with updated new standards, legislation etc.

·       The Briefing Note on the Design Guide received from David Lock Associates in December 2023 which covered the provision for 25% Biodiversity Net Gain amongst other matters.

The Committee was addressed by a representative of the applicant, Caroline Foster of Urban & Civic, who also responded to Member questions. The representative of the applicant provided clarity on:

·       How “serendipity” was being incorporated into the design of the development.

·       Concerns over light spillage, stating that detailed lighting design would come forward in a reserved matters application and would accord with the requirements of the outline consent.

·       The influence of other science park developments and how this was incorporated; the Committee was advised that the proposal had been informed by other similar developments but the proposal was unique and specific to the site.

In the debate, Members felt that the clarification provided throughout the discussion of the application had been satisfactory and that concerns that were relevant at this stage (such as the level of community engagement) had been allayed. The Committee agreed that condition 21 of the outline consent had been complied with and full discharge of the condition was appropriate.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the full discharge of planning condition S/4329/18/COND21 (subject to minor amendments to the Design Guide post committee decision that are not material to the outcome of the document delegated to officers), in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Bill Handley rejoined the Committee