A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details

Decision details

16/1691/FUL - Block B Student Castle, 1 Milton Road

Decision Maker: Planning

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

The Committee received an application for change of use (sui generis - in the alternative) to allow the first and second floors of Block B and the identified DDA room (no. G01) in Block A as aparthotel rooms or student rooms.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident representing Friends of Mitcham’s Corner.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with the argument there was a lack of demand for student accommodation.

     ii.          Suggested that the Student Castle development was not making reasonable adjustments to make the building Disability Discrimination Act compliant.

   iii.          There was no wheelchair accessible toilet.

   iv.          Took issue with the sole accessible (DDA) room being shared by the student accommodation and hotel. If one organisation used it, the other could not.

    v.          Suggested the Applicant was not meeting requirements to have a clearly defined parking space for the sole use of disabled drivers as the space was currently allocated for general use.

 

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

 

Councillor Sargeant (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There was a need for student accommodation.

     ii.          The County Council expressed the view that the development would impose extra car parking demand in neighbouring streets.

   iii.          Taxi parking was an issue. There were no attempts to manage this by the Student Castle development.

   iv.          The development was originally aimed at short term lets. Queried if people would need car parking space(s) if they stayed for 90 days (as per the maximum length).

    v.          Local residents had concerns that the Applicant would not adhere to planning consent conditions.

   vi.          People would only get a travel information pack when they arrived (not before) which put pressure on parking facilities.

 

The Committee:

 

Voted to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.    Loss of student accommodation with reference to the Student Study and NPPG;

2.    Lack of commercial vehicle and servicing provision (policy 8/9);

3.    Loss of disabled student accommodation and the appropriateness of the location of the aparthotel wheelchair accessible room (policies 3/12(b), 3/7(m), 7/10(d));

4.    Impact of parking from hotel visitors on the amenity of local residents (policy 3/4);

 

Vote split as follows:

·       On a show of hands Reason 1 was lost by 2 votes to 5.

·       On a show of hands Members resolved to keep Reason 2 by 4 votes to 2.

·       On a show of hands Reason 3 was lost by 3 votes to 4.

·       On a show of hands Members unanimously resolved to keep Reason 4.

 

Resolved the application was contrary to the officer recommendation for reasons 2 and 4, as set out in the officer update report, as set out below:

·       The apart-hotel use makes inadequate provision for access and for parking of servicing and commercial vehicles. The current arrangements are resulting in obstructions being caused along the main vehicular access road off Victoria Road, which is also used by residents in Corona Road to access their garages. The proposal would potentially exacerbate this conflict and is therefore contrary to policy 8/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).  

·       The apart-hotel use generates car parking from customers staying and accessing the site which is causing obstructions to the internal access way and putting pressure on the surrounding streets. The apart-hotel use is generating additional traffic and movements that are having a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the local residents in terms of on-street car parking and noise disturbance. The apart-hotel use is therefore contrary to policies 3/4 and 8/2 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Report author: Sav Patel

Publication date: 18/10/2017

Date of decision: 04/10/2017

Decided at meeting: 04/10/2017 - Planning

Accompanying Documents: