Issue - meetings

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: