Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of existing conference reception building and construction of a new dining hall, buttery area, kitchens and associated facilities and new areas of hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from a resident of Harrison Drive.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

i.    Welcomed the design of the dining hall but objected to the waste collection element which utilised the residential area of Harrison Drive as a service yard.

ii.   Considered the service yard to be unsafe, unsightly and unsociable as it did not comply with Local Plan policies, 35, 55 and 56.

iii.   Believed there was a better alternative to the proposed service area on the applicant’s site with the use of security barriers preventing out of hours deliveries. The benefits would include CCTV camera’s and wide roads where vehicles could drive in and without having to reverse. This location would be safe, quiet and out of sight and responded to Local Plan policies 35, 55 and 56.

iv.  The collection site was currently further away from the proposed location and the waste collection could still be heard; the noise level would increase with the relocation of the service area.

v.   Had video evidence of vehicles collecting glass at 5.30am.

vi.  The applicant’s proposals trusted their supply chain to comply with conditions but to date they had not.

vii. The planning officer stated the environmental health officer had raised no concerns so it would be unreasonable to impose condition of hours of delivery under para 8.20 of the report but strongly disagreed as supported by Local Plan policy 35.

viii. Requested a similar condition to 10.4 of the report to restrict collections and deliveries outside normal working hours.

ix.  The waste facility design had a large industrial door 8m x3 on the building frontage which could be left open, noisy in operation, dysfunctional over time and offered a poor visual view to the resident’s living opposite.

x.   Felt the conservation officer had not recognised the issues with the door and this should be clarified. A large industrial sized door did not constitute good detailed design.

xi.  Stated the urban design officer had not received the latest design, as in their acceptance of the scheme stated the door is at the side and not at the front.

xii. The planning officer had advised that as the highway on Harrison Drive was not adopted the highway authority had no comment to make. This was socially unacceptable.

xiii. Had been advised that signage would be a solution but there was already a large number of signage on Harrison Drive.

xiv.    Potential risk injury of unsafe vehicle movements from waste vehicles.

 

Councillor McGerty (Queen Edith Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Harrison Drive was a residential street which the college choose to develop for residential use which housed a number of families and a developing community.

     ii.          The applicant as landlords had a responsibility to respond to residents’ concerns.

   iii.          The applicant had recently removed 100 metres of hedgerow for a temporary footpath opposite a separate development which they were currently undertaking.

   iv.          While the applicant had said there were no plans to increase student numbers the College had been allowed to grow to become the largest College in Cambridge.

    v.          Access to the staff car park was at the end of Harrison Drive; the Hills Road end has the Facility of Education.

   vi.          Harrison Drive was in continuous use for service vehicles making deliveries and collections. Vehicles used the layby to make u turns nearer to Hills Road although the noise was still disruptive to occupants.

 vii.          The proposal to move the layby would mean it would sit directly opposite resident’s front doors. This would have an adverse impact on residents.

viii.          A mature protected tree would be cut down to accommodate the relocation of the layby.

   ix.          A large TPO tree had already been taken down without authorisation. In total four trees would be lost but the drawings did not reflect this.

    x.          Would question if the Committee had all the information to consider the environmental loss.

   xi.          The environmental officer did not support the application as outlined in pages 420 & 423 of the agenda pack.

 xii.          Requested the Committee added a condition to install a bollard on the junction of Harris Drive and Scholars Court to prevent large vehicles performing u turns.

xiii.          The College needed to respond positively to the surrounding environment and avoid leaving its own tenants with an unreasonable number and dangerous vehicle movements on the road where they lived.

xiv.          Any conditions applied were likely to be ignored and difficult to enforce.

 

The Senior Planning Officer proposed that the Committee agreed to grant delegated powers to officers to discuss with the College the restriction of delivery and collection times, in conjunction with the Chair and Spokes.

 

Unanimously resolved to do so.

 

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 subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus delegated power to Officers to deal with a condition to restrict delivery hours.