Decision details

The Committee received a written report from the Urban Design and Conservation Manager and a verbal report from Paul Milner, University of Cambridge.

 

The report referred to the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which had been produced in order to set out the joint aspirations of the Council and the University of Cambridge regarding future changes to the site. These should improve the urban form with changes to the public realm, provide better access for all and adopt more sustainable forms of development while respecting the site’s heritage and surroundings. Future development on the site offered an opportunity to create an improved, more coherent development and especially to improve the public realm on the site.

 

Comments from the public

 

     i.        Hoped that the site becomes more accessible to the public.

    ii.        Queried what impact the re-development would have on the Art School building.

   iii.        Would like the Construction Management Plan to take into consideration cyclists and the impact that the construction traffic would have.

  iv.        Asked if the majority of public were not aware that site was accessible to them how they could comment on the improvements in the public consultation.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

     i.        Noted that the Officer’s report stated the draft SPD would be adopted the same time as the Local Plan had been delayed for possibly up to year and asked how this would affect the time table for this redevelopment.

    ii.        Requested that the Committee be advised of the plans in place that would ensure minimal congestion and disruption in the City Centre during the process.

   iii.        Advised that the present site was deemed private by the public and was not accessible. Enquired what changes were being made to improve and encourage public access.

  iv.        Stated that the site had a very long frontage which had been brutalised over time. Enquired what scope there was to improve the surrounding street scenes.

   v.        Asked was the question that the public needed to answer with regards to the public consultation to ensure a positive difference.

  vi.        Welcomed the development but queried what key strategic open spaces at the West Site would be lost.

 vii.        Pleased to note that restricted vehicle access on site but advised that more discussion was needed on the construction traffic movement and traffic management plan.

viii.        Stated that a better understanding was required on vehicle movement in the City as did not want to see the same mistakes that had been made the current redevelopment of the University Arms Hotel in the City Centre.

  ix.        Advised that it would be good to see examples of visible sustainability outside of the building and not just inside as part of the design.

   x.        Specified that this as an opportunity to ask Cambridge University to reduce or stop animal testing.

  xi.        Difficult to understand the parking implications on the new open spaces highlighted on the master plan

 xii.        Would like to see retrofit of the existing buildings.

xiii.        Asked to what extend could public access be introduced to be used as a ‘through route’ from the site.

 

Councillor Reid encouraged the public to visit the website www.eastpaddock.com for more information regarding the campaign to save the last remaining large green space on the West Cambridge site.

 

The Urban Design and Conservation Manager and Paul  Milner (University of Cambridge responded with the following:

 

     i.        As the consultation has been approved by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport this added weight to the decision making when the application would be considered by the Planning Committee, as would the completion of the public consultation.  However the SPD could only be adopted when the Local Plan had been adopted.

    ii.        Conditions would be placed on the planning application to negate any adverse traffic congestion.

   iii.        Construction vehicles would be instructed to enter the site away from Pembroke Street and Downing Street. The majority of demolition would be carried out by hand with the use of power tools, so the construction vehicles would be smaller than the standard vehicles used for demolition.

  iv.        Confirmed that the site was accessible to the public but the new design would make site more inviting with a series of larger inviting open spaces.

   v.        Three new court yards would be linked through the site, the largest of which would be seen from Pembroke Street with a new access point which that would add to the improved visibility through to the museum.

  vi.        There would be a key area of improvement seen to Downing Street.

 vii.        Improvements would also be made to Corn Exchange by the redevelopment of the Sir David Attenborough building, with new public access to the site. There was also a public art proposal aimed to enrich the street.

viii.        Parking on site would be reduced from fifty to eight spaces. Vehicle access would be limited. The Sir David Attenborough building would provide a new service delivery space.

  ix.        The Master Plan outlined various improvements for sustainability on the site. 

   x.        The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine if the public agreed with the SDP, improvements to the access and the proposals to re-using existing buildings.  

  xi.        West Cambridge Land is separate to this redevelopment.

 xii.        Confirmed that the safety of cyclists would be highlighted in the Construction Management Plan.

xiii.        In terms of the impact on the Cambridge Art School, currently a listed building consent application with a full application for the Student Services Centre was being scrutinised by Historic England Cambridge City Council Conservation Officers. The same architect had been working on both applications and was looking positive.