Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for the development for a 150 room hotel and 180 room apart-hotel (C1 Use Class), with ancillary uses including a restaurant, bar, cafe, co-working space and gym, along with associated cycle parking, car parking, landscaping, utilities and associated ancillary structures.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet and highlighted the following:

·        An alternative recommendation was suggested due to recent ICT problems at Cambridge City Council and the possibility that there might have been gaps in email delivery. There was a possibility that late representations might not have been received. 

·        Revised conditions regarding the number of HGV deliveries per day (increased from 5 to 6).

·        Conditions regarding non HGV deliveries on Sunday’s and Bank Holidays.

·        Conditions regarding the use of cranes during construction.

 

Heather Topel (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report.

     i.        Welcomed the additional s106 contributions and suggested that some of this could be used to improve provision in Storeys Way, in particular the junctions, as the hotel would increase cycle use in this area.

 

The Assistant Director undertook to ask planning officers to liaise with County Council regarding the S106 justification and apportionment.

 

    ii.        Questioned the level of provision of electrical charging points and suggested that this would be inadequate in the future.

   iii.        Suggested that the undercroft would be an unappealing space due to the low roof height.

  iv.        Raised concerns regarding the level of parking provision but accepted that the proposal was Local Plan compliant.

   v.        Stated that it was unfortunate that the hotel was in close proximity to the school and suggested that this could be a road safety concern.

  vi.        Questioned whether amplified music should be restricted to all external areas, not just the rooftop terrace.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner and the Assistant Director said the following:

     i.        Confirmed that there would be restrictions on the hours of use of the Rooftop Bar. Adequate controls of other amplified music / noise were already in place.  It was considered unduly onerous to restrict background music to all the external areas.

    ii.        Explained that the increase in the numbers of HGV’s visiting daily had increased as the hotel was larger than that proposed in the outline plan.  The extra HDV delivery, from 5 to 6, relates to waste collection.

   iii.        Confirmed that University was committed to delivering the Senior Care facility and that this would now be located in an alternative part of the development.

  iv.        Concerns over the storage options for non-standard cycles had been addressed in the amendment sheet. There would now be provision in various locations across the development. Camcycle has expressed satisfaction with the improved design of the cycle racks.

   v.        Hotel management would monitor the 90 day limit for use of the Apart-Hotel. The City Council could request this data if it related to a specific enforcement investigation, but would have no grounds to gather or hold this information unnecessarily under Data Protection regulation.

  vi.        Stated that a condition regarding ecology could be added but had not been considered necessary my officers.  The ecology report would be an approved document.

 vii.        The development would be BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) compliant and would not therefore be subject to Secure by Design approval.  

viii.        Overspill parking in residential areas would be monitored and if this became a problem, the university would consult residents regarding a residents parking scheme. The university had made a commitment to funding this if it was required.

 

The Assistant Director undertook to instigate initial discussion with the University and County Council regarding the monitoring of Eddington overspill parking in residential areas in close proximity to the site.

 

  ix.        Confirmed that the private shuttle (mini bus) was part of the travel plan and would be provided by a contractor and parked off site. The applicant had made a commitment to the longer term provision of this facility.

   x.        The building façade would be broken up by the use of varying, high quality materials, detailing and the varying treatment of windows.

  xi.        The palette of materials had been addressed by conditions.

 xii.        Addressed concerns that the hotel would be unviable due to inadequate parking provision and stated that hotel design is bespoke. The operator of this hotel would have considered all aspects of the proposal.

xiii.        Confirmed that the apart-hotel would have 24 hour reception services.

xiv.        Confirmed that the use of Madingley Road would be the likely route of choice of cyclists staying at the hotel.

xv.        Stated that whilst the site had good segregation of cyclists from vehicles, additional requirements could be added to the Construction Method Statement to address members concerns around the hotels proximity to the school.

 

The Assistant Director stated that applications relating to phase 2 of the development would be coming to committee later in the year. She undertook to instruct officers to liaise with the University on the timescales for a review of issues arising from phase 1 of Eddington to inform future strategies for phase 2 of the development.

 

Councillor Bradnam raised concerns regarding fire safety. She questioned why there was no sprinkler system and stated that, whilst the design might meet building regulations, there were opportunities to go above and beyond the minimum requirements.

 

The Committee agreed unanimously to add an informative suggesting a sprinkler system be installed.

 

As detailed in the amendment sheet, the following alternative recommendation was proposed.

 

Due to recent ICT problems last week at Cambridge City Council there may be potential gaps in email delivery.  There could potentially be some further representations which may not have been received during the period of outage last week.  It is therefore recommended that subject to no additional material representations arising from any late representations received by Friday 26 April 2019 that final approval of the application be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development subject to the conditions contained in the report.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention) as agenda with the alternative recommendation (as above) and condition revisions as set out on the Amendment Sheet.

 

Further informative – to strongly advise the applicant to consider provision of an internal sprinkler system as part of the overall fire strategy.

 

Minor modification of condition 5 – Construction Management Strategy to request strategies to minimise risks from construction traffic to vulnerable users around the site.

 

Minor modification of condition 11 – Servicing and operational management plan – officers to amend the condition wording to mandate those elements which are currently described as ‘should’ as “shall” instead.

 

S106 contribution – Officers to review with the County Council their justification for the apportionment of contribution to Madingley Road, in relation to any potential need on Storey’s Way.