Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for change of use to 115 & 117 Grantchester Meadows including partial demolition of outbuildings, refurbishment, internal and external works and extensions to create 22 rooms and 1 apartment for post-graduate student House of Multiple Occupation.

The Principal Planner updated the Planner’s report as follows:

       i.          The Applicant had offered amendments:

a.    Para 8.17: 2 not 3 properties would be affected.

b.    Para 8.52: Agreement to prevent no.8 or 9 South Green Road and 2 Tenison Road for a period of 15 years so they are not used for any other purpose other than C3 dwellings.

     ii.          The application was subject to a s106 agreement.

   iii.          A management plan was required for student accommodation.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          115-117 Grantchester Meadows were attractive family houses that would be lost if the application were approved. This would harm the character of the area.

     ii.          Residents were concerned that St Catherine’s College were trying to buy up Green End Road and set up a gated community.

   iii.          The Council was going against its own policies in paragraphs 5.4 and 8.5 of the Officer’s report. Residents disagreed that there were special circumstances to do this, as referred to in the Officer’s report.

Mr Halford (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Gehring (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          This application was an exception to agreed policies which could set a precedent where exceptions became the norm.

     ii.          The College was putting in proposals that would not be ‘good neighbours’ with residential areas.

   iii.          Suggested the College was trying to establish a mini-campus in Newnham.

   iv.          More accommodation was being planned than the 2% post graduate expansion per annum which the College said it would aim for.

    v.          The proposal was unsuitable for the area. Queried what would happen if more accommodation was supplied than was demanded. The application could become a partial hotel like an earlier application consider by committee (Block B Student Castle 1 Milton Road).

   vi.          Building would take place in a conservation area.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason:

Notwithstanding the material considerations of the case, the proposed student accommodation would result in the loss of two existing dwellings. This would conflict with Local Plan (2006) policy 7/7 which seeks to support windfall student hostel development subject to it not resulting in the loss of family residential accommodation. The proposal would also conflict with policy 5/4 which does not permit the loss of existing dwellings to other uses unless it can be demonstrated it complies with the criteria in this policy. The proposal would not comply with any part of the criteria as set out in policy 5/4. Therefore, the principle of the proposed development is unacceptable and the loss of the existing housing would be contrary to policies 5/4 and 7/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).