Decision details

The Officer’s report was prepared and brought before Committee in accordance with the Adjourned Decision Protocol, following the Committee resolution on April 1st 2015 that it was minded to determine a major planning application contrary to the officer recommendation.

Officers have taken further advice on the committee’s intended reasons for refusal. Minor changes are suggested to make them as specific as possible but they are considered to be based on arguable planning grounds.

The Principal Planning Officer Clarified the situation regarding visual images discussed at previous meeting of the 1^st April 2015.

The Committee:

Resolved (6 votes to 0 with 1 abstentions) to confirm its provisional decision of 1^st April 2015 that the planning application (14/1154/FUL) for new student housing (202 study bedrooms) and associated communal facilities, cycle parking, and external landscaping at West’s Garage site, 217 Newmarket Road, should be refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

1.      Because of its height and massing, the Newmarket Road range of the building would be poorly integrated into the locality, reading discordantly against the prevailing character on the north side of this road, creating an uncomfortable discontinuity of scale against the Corner House public house at its eastern end, and the rear of this range causing an unacceptable sense of visual domination for occupiers of houses on the east side of Godesdone Road. It would hence have a harmful impact on the surrounding context, and would be contrary to the Eastern Gate SPD 2011, policies 3/4 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and government guidance on good design in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2.      Despite the realignment of the River lane frontage introduced in the most recent amendments to the proposal, the eastern range of the building would overwhelm the houses on the opposite side of River Lane, visually dominating them to an undue extent and creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure, contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and government guidance on good design in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3.      Notwithstanding the amended roof configuration, the height and massing of the northern Rowlinson Way range and the western 'pavilion' building would create a sense of overbearing bulk which would not respect the established character of surrounding buildings in Godesdone Road, River Lane and Beche Road, would be poorly integrated with the locality, and would detract from the character of the Riverside section of City of Cambridge Conservation Area No.1 (Central), contrary to policies 3/1, 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and government guidance on good design and conserving the historic environment in Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4.      Despite the introduction of a dual-height communal space within the building adjacent to it, the proposed sunken courtyard, made more narrow as amended than in the original submission, would be very limited in size, and would be highly enclosed and appear cramped and overwhelmed by the height of buildings surrounding it. It would not be usable or enjoyable, and future occupiers of the development would consequently not be provided with an attractive, high-quality or stimulating living environment, contrary to policies 3/7 and 3/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and government guidance on good design in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

5.      Occupancy of the speculative purpose-built student accommodation proposed is not limited to full-time students of the University of Cambridge or Anglia Ruskin University, nor do management arrangements exist to ensure occupiers do not keep cars in the city, nor could it be guaranteed that this location is suitably close to the educational institution involved. These failings render the proposal contrary to policy 7/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

6.      The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for open space and sports facilities, waste facilities or public art, in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12 and 10/1, and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, Public Art SPD 2010 and the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010.