Agenda item

Erection of Research and Development buildings (use class E) and associated decked car park, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The Committee agreed by affirmation that, if it were minded to approve the application, that the wording in the Transport Obligation in the Heads of Terms be amended to read as follows:

“A financial contribution of £323,505 to be used towards CSET or alternative sustainable transport infrastructure in agreement with the Highway Authority”

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

The Senior Planner, Alice Young, presented the report and provided a number of updates. Measurements in paragraphs 6.42 and 10.17 were corrected to state a height of 14.3m to cope level and 17.015m to the roof top plant. The wording of condition 10 was to be altered to make it a compliance condition, ensuring that the details of the submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan were followed. Officers were granted delegated authority to make minor changes to the trigger points of the conditions. The Chair noted that a site visit for the application had been held on 07 March 2023.

Clarity was provided on the relationship between Building Regulations and policy CC/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. The Committee was informed that conditions secured details of carbon efficiency and that a Building Regulations application would be submitted at a later date if the Committee were to approve the application- the relevant Building Regulations at the time would apply to any relevant application. A question was raised on the maintenance of the site post-development and the Committee was informed that condition 3 required the submission of a landscape maintenance and management plan, with the duration of the management strategy to be agreed at a later date. The Senior Planner informed the Committee that water management details were to be secured, as specified in condition 7, and that condition 2 would secure BREAAM compliance as and when appropriate. Queries were raised over the relationship of the site with the proposed CSET transport plan and concerns were raised over the direct link between CSET and the Section 106 (S106) contributions. Members were informed that the design of the site had incorporate the CSET proposals but that these proposals could change- the Chair noted that the status of CSET was not a material consideration for the application. A question was raised on the Principle of Development and the change of allocation on the site; officers confirmed that the departure from residential use was acceptable as the entirety of the site was no longer deemed appropriate for housing and thus would not be brought forward into the next Local Plan as part of the housing allocation. The Committee noted that consent had been provided for employment use of the site.

The Chair used his discretion to vary the order of public speakers. The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Emma Woods. A question of clarity was raised on the S106 contributions and the agent stated that the contribution had been recommended by Cambridgeshire County Council and that the developers understood the contribution would be used for sustainable transport, with the Highways Authority allocating it to schemes they deemed appropriate. A question was raised the colour of the cladding on the development and the Committee was informed that the developer would use a lighter coloured cladding, in response to recommendations from consultation. The Committee was addressed by an objector, Sarah Nicholas of Cambridge Past, Present and Future. Members asked questions of clarity over the visual impact of the development on views in the surrounding area. The Committee noted that the development would have some visual impact on the surrounding area.

In the debate, Members commended the principle of development. The Committee felt that it was a good use of brownfield land, would enhance the growth of the area and that the development would fit in well with the surrounding context. The concerns over the impact on views in the surrounding area were noted, but it was felt that the design of the building was better than some of the existing buildings in the area and that the development would not be intrusive, instead it held the potential to improve aesthetics of the area. Queries were raised in relation to the S106 contribution and the direct link to the CSET proposals. Some Members expressed a desire to change the wording of the Heads of Terms to include wider sustainable transport measures, in the event CSET did not come forward, to ensure appropriate sustainable transport mitigation was provided- the agent of the applicant indicated that the applicant would be content for such a change to be implemented. Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Dr Richard Williams, proposed that the wording of the Heads of Terms be amended. The Committee agreed by affirmation that, if it were minded to approve the application, that the wording in the Transport Obligation in the Heads of Terms be amended to read as follows:

“A financial contribution of £323,505 to be used towards CSET or alternative sustainable transport infrastructure in agreement with the Highway Authority”

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