Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
186 15/0945/FUL - 23-25 Hills Road PDF 144 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the
demolition of nos.23-25 Hills Road and the re-development of this plot with a four-storey
building with a mansard roof form, containing a retail unit (A1) on the ground
floor level and student accommodation (C2) on the upper floors.
The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Gawthrop.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
His residents’ association had experience of 16 – 18 year old
foreign students in Linwood Road. They congregated in the street and disturbed
residents (this had been reported to Environmental Health Officers).
ii.
2 Linwood Road did not have an on-site warden.
iii.
If no amenity space was provided at 23-25 Hills Road then it
was likely students would congregate in the road.
The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Ms Josselyn.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
There was no onsite external amenity space at 23-25 Hills
Road, therefore students were likely to congregate in the road which could:
·
Block the narrow Cambridge Place entry point, particularly
for service vehicles.
·
Lead to anti-social behaviour such as smoking and drinking.
ii.
Parking / drop-off spaces for
service vehicles should be provided.
iii.
Policy 50 of the Local Plan should
be considered.
iv.
Strict control of the building
process was required, the current conditions were impossible to enforce.
Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.
Resolved (by 4
votes to 0) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:
The development fails to make proper provision for servicing of the
proposed student accommodation units and in so doing fails to provide for the
adequate management and maintenance of the development. The development is therefore contrary to
policy 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.