Agenda item

Demolition of 13,594sq.m of existing buildings, alterations and extensions of 1,127 sq.m to retained buildings to allow use within Class E within Ash House, Class E(b) within Moat House and Class C1 within the new wing rear of Moat House, development of 46,031 sq.m of new office and technology research facilities (Class E(g)(i), (ii) and (iii)) including continued use of DaVinci building and 22,941 sq.m of ancillary buildings for vehicle and cycle parking, together with temporary and permanent plant and infrastructure works including formation of two additional vehicular accesses and one additional vehicular egress from Cambridge Road and landscaping.

The Committee agreed that a number of amendments were to be made to the conditions and Heads of Terms, if the application was to be approved.

By 7 votes to 3, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and 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.

Minute 5 was taken as the sixth item of business, as per the agreed variance of the order of business

The Area Team Leader presented the report and advised that 4 late representations had been received that did not result in any amendment to the officer’s recommendation. The Committee was informed that all references in conditions to drawing number VN212120-D105-F were to be replaced with drawing number VN212120-D195-G, and that the applicant had requested a number of other changes to conditions:

- In condition 15, the removal of all reference of “off-site mitigation” regarding Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Officers had no objection as it would result in all BNG measures being delivered on-site.

- An amendment to condition 28 (cycle parking) to cover all buildings and the removal of condition 29. Officers had no objection as, with the amendment to condition 28, condition 29 would essentially be a duplication if conditions.

- An amendment to condition 42 to correct the class use reference of C1, which was a correction and as such officers did not object. Further request to amend the class uses for the Block A within condition 42 from only use for Class E(d and E) to “for purposes within Class E other than Class E(f) which officers did not agree with as it could potentially allow for uses that would not be supported in the location.

Members asked a number of questions of clarity covering a range of matters and officer’s provided response, clarifying that:

- Tree removal on site would mostly result in the removal on category C (low quality) and U (poor quality/unretainable) trees, with 19 category B (moderate quality) trees being removed, as listed in the report. Across the whole site there would be an uplift in total trees as a result of the proposal.

- The “village green” in the western area of the site was the name the applicant chose for the green space.

- The “mobility hub” was a car park with a cycle parking and repair element.

- The figure of 530 new jobs on-site being provided as a result of the proposal was based on figures from the economic report from the agent (Savills).

- Officers were unsure if the hedge on the Cambridge Road boundary was to be retained, but landscaping conditions could be amended to require retention or replacement of the hedge. Trees along the boundary were to be retained.

- Condition 17 d) required details of the long-term maintenance of landscape areas and criterion b) required replacement planting for any planting that died/was lost for 5 years from the date of planting.

- Residential amenity impact assessments were the same for both private and affordable housing in close proximity to the site, including with respect to Townscape and Landscape Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs).

- The principle of public art on the site was to be agreed as part of the proposal, with details of public art installations to be secured by condition 22. Officers advised that they were happy to work with Members and the local community in the process of agreeing final details and discharging condition 22.

- Water usage reduction on the site would result from the phased nature of development and condition 34 covered matters of water efficiency.

- Condition 23 could be amended to require electric vehicle charging points at the Moat House.

- The community use of Block A had been established in a manner satisfactory to officers and public accessibility of services within Building A was to be secured by the Section 106 agreement.

Highways and parking

Members sought clarity on why the creche facilities in Block A had been removed from the proposal. Officers advised that the access to Block A was to be via a dropped kerb and that Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Development Management had concerns over the number of car parking spaces provided at Block A and the number of vehicle movements that would occur across the dropped kerb. It was clarified that the Highways Development Management comments did not require any particular business to be included or removed from Block A, but that measures to minimise the number of vehicle movements over the dropped kerb access were required.

Members raised concerns over the quantum of parking spaces provided on site and the lack of compliance with the standards set out in policy TI/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Officers advised that travel plan data from the adjacent Project Birchwood development showed that 80% of those travelling to the site used a private car which suggested that a level of car parking provision below the standards of TI/3 would be acceptable, and further measures would reduce the amount of travel to the site by private car by another 5%. As such, officers felt the proposed quantum of parking was acceptable. With respect to condition 37, officers advised that the provisions of the Travel Plan and Car Parking Management Plan were to be monitored for 5 years following first occupation. Members suggested that 5 years following final occupation would be more appropriate and officers advised that this would be an acceptable amendment to the condition.

Visual impact

Members requested further details on the objection from the Landscape Team and the Senior Landscape Architect advised that the photography on the visual representation of the development was not in accordance with the Landscape Institute’s Technical Guidance Note on Visual Representation of Development Proposals. As such, Landscape officers felt it was difficult to judge the significance of the visual impact of the proposal, and more information on whether views were verified and evidence from more views would have allowed Landscape officers to fully assess the proposal. Further detail was given and Members were informed that verified views would include more information on the location and level of zoom of cameras used in photographs. Members enquired as to if it would be possible to get further LVIA information, including verified views and winter views, and officers advised that this process would take months. As such, officers advised that a deferral to get further LVIA information would be inappropriate but concerns over harms resulting from visual impact and non-compliance with policies HQ/1 and NH/2 of the Local Plan could be listed as a reason for refusal if the Committee was minded to refuse the application. The Area Team Leader advised that whilst the proposal would result in some visual impact, it was not considered overbearing and officers felt that the impact on local views was acceptable.

The Committee was addressed by an objector, William Webb on behalf of the Melbourn Science Park Neighbour Group. In response to Member questions, he and other members of the Group clarified that the Group was made up of residents of Moat Lane and that concerns over light pollution arose from existing light pollution from the nearby TTP site which the Group felt would be exacerbated by the proposal, especially given the buildings in the proposal were taller than those on the TTP site. The agent of the applicant, Paul Rowland, spoke in support of the application. With support from the architect Josh Stokes, he responded to Member questions of clarity and informed the Committee that:

- The applicant was committed to sustainable travel and sought to divert people away from using private cars to access the site and that the applicant would have proposed more parking on-site if they had felt it was necessary. Reference was made to condition 37 and the requirement for a Travel Plan and Car Parking Management plan to be submitted and approved.

- Most of the tree planting proposed was to be in and around public areas within the site, with discussions being held with officers on how to maximise the effectiveness of tree planting. The applicant was not relying on planting to provide screening as existing trees along the boundary, which were to be retained, already provided screening.

- Water consumption on the site would be reduced by the phased nature of development and water consumption estimates were based on the expected use of the buildings following occupation (wet labs). Details were given on the process of assessing water consumption.

- The proposal had been reviewed and design alterations were made in the pre-application process. The applicant did not feel that a reduction in the height or scale of buildings would be viable and excavation to allow for underground elements of buildings was not viable due to the geological nature of the site, with a high water table, and carbon emissions resulting from the process.

- With regard to LVIAs and the comments of the Landscape Team, the applicant would have been happy to follow the practice laid out in the Landscape Institute’s Technical Guidance Note if they were given enough notice. The applicant felt that following the practice would have resulted in the same images being produced, but the agent did note that winter views were lacking.

- The creche had been removed from the proposal in response to the Highway Development Management comments.

- With regard to light pollution, the proposal sought to minimise impact by keeping lighting as low as possible without compromising safety.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams left the meeting

Councillor John Travis of Melbourn Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council, who supported the application but held reservations. Councillor Travis responded to Member questions and clarified that the Parish Council held concerns over visual impact on the area and that traffic management was the biggest concern of the Parish Council.

Councillors Jose Hales and Sally Ann Hart addressed the Committee as local Members who objected to the application and responded to Member questions, clarifying that:

- A creche on the site would likely be well used. There was unlikely to be other available space in the village to provide a creche service, even if Section 106 funding was granted.

- There were concerns over Anglian Water’s comments that the Melbourn Water Recycling Centre did not have capacity to deal with foul water flows from the site. The local Members accepted that this was not a material consideration for the Planning Committee but felt that the proposal would worsen foul water drainage problems in Melbourn.

- Massing and visual impact were a significant concern. Whilst the local Members supported the design and efforts to move larger buildings away from the site boundaries, it was felt that the heights of the buildings would be oppressive and impact surrounding properties. It was also felt that the proposal was for metropolitan style buildings that did not match the rural aesthetic of the village. Concerns were also raised that not enough views had been considered in the assessment of visual impact.

- The additional car movements would worsen traffic issues in the village. The local Members felt that both traffic in the village, surrounding villages and on the A10 would be impacted as a result of the proposal but mitigation measures, such as traffic lights, would be too costly to impose responsibility on the developer to provide through the Section 106 agreement.

- The principle of development was supported but the scale and impact of the proposal was not acceptable to the local Members.

Prior to the debate, the Committee agreed that a creche should be provided as part of the development and officers advised that condition 42 could be amended to include Class use E(f) for Block A to allow for this.

In the debate, Members agreed that the principle of development was acceptable and discussed a range of matters. Concerns were raised over the comments of Anglian Water and the impact of the proposal on foul water drainage in Melbourn but the Committee noted that this was not a material consideration. Heights and massing were discussed; some Members felt that it was unacceptable in the rural context and concerns were raised over the potential for harm to neighbour amenity given the comments of the Landscape Team and lack of verified views and variety of views considered. Others felt that the developer had taken appropriate steps to mitigate harm and the design and scale of the proposal was acceptable and necessary to ensure the proposal was viable. Further discussion was held over concerns regarding car parking provision and the impact on local traffic. The Committee noted the weight given to the need to provide employment land on a national level and research facilities given local context. Members agreed that the proposal would result in a level of harm, but a decision was to be made on if the benefits of the approval outweighed the harms after mitigation. Some Members commented that changes to the conditions and Section 106 agreement would lead them to being approval minded.

Following the debate, the Delivery Manager summarised the officer’s recommendation and the changes to the conditions and informatives suggested by officers and requested by the Committee, listed below:

- Condition 15 was amended to remove all reference to “off-site mitigation” with regards to Biodiversity Net Gain, and the removal of criterion i).

- Condition 17 was amended to include reference to details of boundary landscaping.

- Condition 23 was amended to include reference to the provision of electric vehicle charging points in the Moat House car park.

- Condition 26 was amended to remove reference to “Rev F” and replace it with reference to “Rev G”.

- The first sentence of condition 28 was amended to read “prior to occupation of each new or refurbished building, details of facilities for the secure parking of cycles for use in connection with that building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.

- Condition 29 was to be removed.

- The final paragraph of condition 37, above the reason, was amended to state that “the Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan shall be implemented and monitored as approved upon the final occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.

- Condition 38 was amended to change reference to dwg. no. VN212120-D105-F to reference to dwg. no. VN212120-D105-G.

- Condition 40 was amended to change reference to dwg. no. VN212120-D105-F to reference to dwg. no. VN212120-D105-G.

- Condition 42 was amended to refer to Class C1, instead of Class C2, in reference to the usage of The Moat House. Condition 42 was also amended to add reference to Class E(f), in addition to Class E(d and e), with regards to the usage of Block A.

- Informative 15 was to be removed.

The Delivery Manager also advised that changes to the Heads of Terms had been suggested, with an addition of £10,000 to the Transport Obligation for the implementation of parking restrictions in the vicinity and/or traffic calming measures, if necessary. The trigger point for the Community Facilities Obligation was also to be reviewed in the negotiation of the Section 106 agreement to reflect the comments of Members.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed that, if it were minded to approve the application, approval would be subject to the amendments to the conditions, informatives and Heads of Terms as described by the Delivery Manager.

By 7 votes (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Geoff Harvey, Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins and Eileen Wilson) to 3 (Councillors Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford and Heather Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions (with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers), informatives 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 (with minor amendments to the Heads of Terms as set out delegated to officers).