Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Planning
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for removal
of glass pyramid structure to roof of existing leisure centre, re-cladding of
the facades and erection of single storey extension (net gain of 10no
additional bedrooms and leisure facilities).
The Senior Planner reported a further
representation received from the Federation of Cambridge Residents Association
which raised no new issues and updated her report with a
pre-committee amendment:
Additional
condition:
17. Prior to
first occupation of the hotel bedrooms hereby permitted, the replacement
leisure facility shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and
shall be available for members other than resident guests of the hotel to use
in accordance with a membership system.
Reason: To guard
against the loss of the leisure facility in accordance with Cambridge Local
Plan (2006) policy 6/1.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Wordsworth Grove.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Various residents associations
objected to the application.
ii.
The Hotel had made seven planning
applications since 2010, most had been refused.
iii.
The application did not meet Local
Plan criteria.
iv.
Extending and cladding the
application would harm the character of the area.
v.
Specific objections:
·
Building on the riverfront.
·
Loss of views of the area.
·
Design, scale and massing.
Ms O’Gorman (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Bick
(Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application on
behalf of Councillor Cantrill
(Newnham Ward Councillor).
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The application was sited in a quintessential /
historic part of Cambridge.
ii.
Referred to Councillor Cantrill’s input into previous
applications.
iii.
Planning
permission had been refused in 2013 based on the provision of leisure
facilities. The Senior Planner’s said the current provision was not different
but the table on P305 of the Officer’s report showed there would be less.
Councillor Cantrill expressed concern over the apparent loss of facilities and
suggested Local Plan policy 6/4 should be defended.
iv.
The 10m
addition to the river frontage was concerning. This would impact on views in
the Conservation Area as referenced by the Planning Inspector in an earlier
application. The extension would have a negative impact on the setting, sense
of place and character of the (sensitive) area.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the amended conditions recommended by the officers.
Report author: Charlotte Burton
Publication date: 01/02/2018
Date of decision: 10/01/2018
Decided at meeting: 10/01/2018 - Planning
Accompanying Documents: