A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

18/1930/FUL - Redevelopment Area Of Mill Lane Cambridge

Meeting: 11/06/2019 - Planning (Item 80)

80 18/1930/FUL - Redevelopment Area Of Mill Lane Cambridge pdf icon PDF 563 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee received an application for full planning permission.


The application sought approval for the redevelopment of site to form expansion of Pembroke College comprising repurposing of existing buildings, demolition and erection of new buildings for a mix of uses comprising 94no. student residential units, 1478sqm B1 College office floorspace, 1773sqm D1 teaching space, 1004sqm D2 College leisure and community floorspace, 363sqm commercial A1, A2, A3, A4 retail, food and drink floorspace; and ancillary uses comprising landscaping and hard surfacing, formation of new courtesy crossing at Trumpington Street, highways, vehicular and cycle parking, and associated works and infrastructure.


After the presentation from the Principal Planning Officer Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Lord:


·  The application be deferred and considered after a Members’ guided site visit had taken place.


On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 3 votes to 4 Votes.


The Committee received representation in objection to the application a representative of Camcycle.


The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Disagreed with the proposal of an informal crossing in front of Pembroke College; this area was already difficult for pedestrians and cyclists especially when crossing Trumpington Street.

  ii.  An informal crossing would not improve the situation but a Zebra crossing would.

  iii.  The most recent design still creates a serious hazard for those cycling down Trumpington Street.

  iv.  Vehicle drivers could squeeze cyclists up against the bollards which do not have a cycling bypass; to get through a bus driver must pull out into the oncoming lane and sweep to back left to straighten out. Both of these movements were potentially hazardous.

  v.  The highway was very narrow on Trumpington Street and when vehicles were queuing to the Grand Arcade Car Park; the queue could go past the bollards which would impact on the south bound buses.

  vi.  An informal crossing was not good enough and could create further hazards unless changes were made to the street layout which gave increased priority to pedestrians and cyclists.

 vii.  A formal crossing should be considered as there were three nearby examples in the same Conservation Area; a zebra crossing was therefore a possibility.

viii.  Further discussion should take place regarding the plans for the northern part of the site which included Silver Street; proposals to change the priority of the junction around would improve pedestrian and cyclists’ safety.

  ix.  With regards to proposed condition 48, the Committee should consider changing the word ‘informal’ to ‘a revised street design which included a safe and convenient pedestrian crossing’. Delete the reference to ‘drawing plan’ and ‘crossing’ and leave the text ‘approved design’.

  x.  With regard to the pre-committee amendment to the recommendations (No 2) to grant office delegation; the Committee should provide specific guidance to the design containing the bollards placed in the carriage way.


The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of St Mary’s Lane.


The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  The properties were the only non-university properties adjoining the site.

  ii.  Thirty comments on the application had been raised by residents of St Mary’s Lane but would highlight six with the Committee.

  iii.  The properties on St Mary’s Lane were delicate; most were over 300 hundred years old, listed and some of single skin whose boundaries went right up to the existing boundary wall with some of the properties attached to the boundary wall.

  iv.  As the proposed plans built right up to the boundary wall there was a serious risk of damage to the properties during the development.

  v.  While the bollards on the proposed development had been put into place the properties had been shaking.

  vi.  Maintenance on the properties would be made more difficult; access to the rear access to the properties would be lost with a reduction in parking for maintenance vehicles.

 vii.  The application had suggested a reduction of 40% of natural light and there has been an offer of compensation which has not been taken forward.

viii.  Windows on the new building directly faced into the properties bedroom and workrooms.

  ix.  Stated that Pembroke College had a history of not managing their sites well. The College were responsible for a property in the Lane where there had been four incidents of anti-social behaviour in the last twelve months.

  x.  No response had been received from Pembroke College in response to the thirty comments made.

  xi.  Would have a detrimental impact on the community; one resident had already moved out due to the risk of noise, another had been told they could only rent to students and a third rhad had their property devalued by 20%.

 xii.  The view was emerging that the Lane would only survive as student housing rather than private living accommodation.

xiii.  Requested that the Committee considered the longer term future of the Lane.


Lord Smith (Master of Pembroke College) addressed the Committee in support of the application.


County Councillor Harrison (Market Ward) addressed the Committee about the application.


The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Welcomed the development and understood the importance but was concerned to hear the issues raised by the resident on St Mary’s Lane.

  ii.  The issue of the pedestrian crossing seemed to have become a bigger issue than it should be.

  iii.  It was the responsibility of Cambridgeshire County Council to set out clear requirement in terms of what highway crossing was necessary.

  iv.  The City Council conservation officers had been opposed to a formal pedestrian crossing on the site but they were all over the city.

  v.  There should not be a situation where pedestrian safety was sacrificed and the College agreeing to a five year safety review to resolve the issue of the crossing.

  vi.  The issue of pedestrian safety was a very important component of the development for the both the public and students; safety was vital and had to be dealt with immediately.

 vii.  The matter seemed to have become complicated for the simple reason the conservation officers did not like pedestrian crossings.

viii.  Expressed support for Camcycle’s proposal that the option of a form of pedestrian crossing should be kept open; a zebra crossing would be adequate.

  ix.  The north side of the junction should also be changed to a zebra crossing so that they matched which would have minimal visual impact.

  x.  The cycling officer did not welcome an informal pedestrian crossing but this information was not in the report to the Committee.

  xi.  The safety audit could show that an informal safety crossing was not a safe option.

 xii.  Requested the Committee amended proposed condition 48 so it would be easy to move to a formal crossing if identified.

xiii.  As cycle parking on site would be accessed from Mill Lane, this would increase the number of cyclists from Pembroke Street to Mill Lane and back and again; a possible mitigation as suggested by Camcycle would be to switch priority so the traffic priority was into Pembroke Street. County Council officers had suggested both advantages and disadvantages to this proposal.

xiv.  Suggested a new condition be included to carry out an evaluation of highway management options which could improve cycle safety on the junction which would read as follows:

“An assessment should be made for potential highways management measures to improve cycle safety at the Mill Lane, Trumpington Street, Pembroke Junction and any recommended measures shall be implemented


Councillor Sargeant proposed an amendment to proposed condition 48 to bring it in line with the recommendation made by Camcycle.


The Principle Planning Officer recommendation the following amendment (deleted text struck through)


20.  Amend new Condition 48 (ex-49) to read (deleted text struck through: ‘No development shall take place until a plan showing the layout and design of an informal pedestrian crossing of Trumpington Street between the application site and the main Pembroke College porters' lodge, in broad accordance with drawing ref:  6991-WSP-01-XX-DR-TP-022 P05, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved crossing design shall be implemented prior to any occupation of the student accommodation hereby approved.


This amendment was carried unanimously.


The Committee:


Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report and amendment sheet, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers, but with the following additional amendments:


  i.  The decision to APPROVE the application is subject to the satisfactory submission of a sustainable drainage strategy and its supporting calculations.

  ii.  DELEGATED AUTHORITY is granted to officers to approve such a strategy.

  iii.  Amend Condition 48 to read ‘No development shall take place until a plan showing the layout and design of a pedestrian crossing of Trumpington Street between the application site and the main Pembroke College porters' lodge has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved crossing design shall be implemented prior to any occupation of the student accommodation hereby approved.’

  iv.  Amend Condition 39 by replacing the words ‘Phase 2 of the development’ by ‘the student residential accommodation’.

  v.  Add Condition 50: ‘Development shall take place only in accordance with the approved Sustainable Drainage Strategy (version number to be added) and supporting calculations, submitted on (date to be added.)’


Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage of surface water. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 31 and 32).