Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
57 14/1154/FUL - Wests Garage PDF 306 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The proposal sought approval for the
erection of new student housing (202 study bedrooms) and associated communal facilities,
cycle parking, and external landscaping following demolition of the existing
buildings.
The Committee
received representation in objection to the application from Harry Goode.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
This application was the first test of the north
side for Newmarket Road of the Eastern gate SPD which was adopted in 2011 and
the Conservation Area created in 2012.
ii.
It was claimed that the application was SPD
compliant but this is not the case, for example the proposal did not comply
with the maximum heights stated in the SPD.
iii.
The developers had not responded to the historical
character of the High Street as outlined in the SPD.
iv.
In accordance with the SPD, developers should avoid
long flat horizontal rooflines but this proposal does not meet that
requirement.
v.
The SPD aspires that Newmarket Road is to have
green open spaces but there is none on this application.
vi.
The SPD references the social housing on River Lane
and the impact on these properties has been ignored.
vii.
The application does not meet 4/11 of the Local
Plan.
viii.
The development does not protect the views to and
across the conservation area.
ix.
No images have been shown from Godeson
Road as the development would have a negative impact on these residents.
x.
No 20 Godeson Road would
be visually dominated by a 9 metre high and 15.4 in
length structure running along the garden of the property.
xi.
Would have an adverse effect on the light into the
gardens of No 16 &18 Godson Road.
xii.
The proposal was an over
development of the site.
Jenny Page (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.
County Councillor
Joan Whitehead (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the Committee about the
application.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The site was on one of the busiest and congested
road junctions in the City.
ii.
There was no safe cycling route on this side of the
City to Anglia Ruskin University (ARU).
iii.
The safest route to ARU would be to walk along Newmarket
Road to the roundabout and cycle the remainder of the way along the back roads.
iv.
If cyclists did not dismount along Newmarket Road
this could be a danger to pedestrians.
v.
Crossing River Lane could be hazardous for
pedestrians as this is the route to the nearest supermarket.
vi.
There was a large volume of cars entering and
exiting River Lane at all times.
vii.
The suggestion that the residents parking scheme
should be suspended on River Lane and Godeson Road
for the start and end of term student drop off was unacceptable. These spaces were
not available to the applicant for this purpose or taxi’s and delivery
vehicles.
viii.
Both River Lane and Godeson
Road were the main access routes to the surrounding houses.
ix.
The site was unsuitable for such a large development
and the number of students it proposed to house.
x.
The proposal created a number of safety issues to
both pedestrians and cyclists.
City Councillor Richard Johnson (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed
the Committee about the application.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The development would have a negative impact on the
Cambridge Housing Society tenants in River Lane.
ii.
The proposal was of significant overdevelopment
creating a poor environment for students to live in.
iii.
An opportunity had been missed to ensure the
development would integrate with the area and neighbours.
iv.
The proposal failed to correspond with the Eastern
Gate SPD.
v.
There had been a lack of attention to the proposed
development overlooking the River Lane frontage. The scale of the proposal was
visually domineering to the residents.
vi.
There had
been lack of images from the applicant taken from River Lane to show how the
development would affect the properties on River Lane directly opposite despite
requests from residents.
vii.
Requested that the Committee take note of these
images supplied by the objectors.
viii.
The height of the corner block on River Lane
ignored the SPD guidance for building heights and in some cases the development
exceeds the guidance by up to 40%.
ix.
Had the proposed corner block on River Lane been
within the SPD guidance the development would not be so over domineering to the
Cambridge Housing Society tenants.
x.
The River Lane frontage of the proposal did not
meet the standard set in 3.2.10 (gateways and entries) of the SPD.
xi.
There would be a 25-31% reduction in daylight to no’
s6 – 10 River Lane and 22% to no’s 12 -16% River Lane.
xii.
Meeting the minimum standard of daylight was not
adequate and did correspond to 3.4.9 of the SPD.
xiii.
The loss of daylight should be considered as an
unacceptable loss of amenity.
xiv.
Goes against 3/4 of the Local Plan.
xv.
The below ground court yard provides 18% of the
Council’s open spaces standard. This offered less outside space than the
previous application which did meet 3/8 of the Local Plan.
xvi.
Did not meet 3/7 and 3/8 of the Local Plan.
xvii.
The proposal would change the character of
Newmarket Road and is considered harmful to the conservation area.
City Councillor Peter Roberts (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the
Committee about the application.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The official representation of objection
highlighted in the Officers report was not a true reflection of the number of
residents who had expressed their objection directly expressed to Ward Councillors.
ii.
Residents were not opposed to development to the
site but to what had been proposed.
iii.
Residents wanted an appropriate structure that
fitted in with the surrounding area and offered quality of life to those living
inside the proposed building.
iv.
Pragmatic suggestions had been offered by those
opposing the scheme to improve the development, some of which had been
addressed by the developer, but more changes were required.
v.
Further changes were required that offered
financial benefits to the developer, enhanced the students’ living conditions
and did not have an adverse effect on local residents.
vi.
3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Local Plan needed to be
considered.
vii.
North of Newmarket Road was a designated
conservation area and should be protected.
viii.
The development should not emulate the hotel
building opposite; long flat horizontal rooflines should be avoided and should
not have a negative impact on buildings on the northern side of Newmarket Road.
ix.
Height guidelines referenced in the SPD had been
ignored.
x.
The proposal offered no landscaping to soften the
impact of the building on Newmarket Road.
xi.
Safety of the residents and students must be
considered due the number of individuals on site.
After Members had bebated the merits of the proposal. The Head of Planning Services
advised the Chair to initiate the adjourned decision protocol as the Committee
appeared to be minded to go against officer recommendation.
The item would
then be deferred and officers would prepare a further report providing relevant
additional advice on the committee resolution. This report would be brought
back to the next available meeting.
The Committee:
Councillor C Smart
proposed and Councillor Blencowe seconded that the application was adjourned
under the terms of the adjourned item protocol based on the reasons that had
been included in the report to committee in January 2015.
Resolved unanimously minded to refuse
and therefore adjourn proceeding under the terms of the adjourned item protocol
agreed in September 2014 for decision at the next planning available planning
committee: