Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
80 18/1930/FUL - Redevelopment Area Of Mill Lane Cambridge PDF 563 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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).