Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
3 18/1002/FUL - 211-213 Newmarket Road and 2 Godesdone Road PDF 340 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the demolition of existing buildings
at 211-213 Newmarket Road and the construction of a hotel (C1 use), with change
of use and conversion of 2 Godesdone Road to C1 use,
and provision of associated infrastructure.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident.
The representation covered the following issues:
i. Following
a survey undertaken in March 2019 only 3 out of 325 respondents regarded the
development as a good idea
ii. There
were numerous shortcomings within the officer’s report that omitted facts and
was therefore misleading.
iii. The
proposed development represented the third large budget hotel to the existing
cluster that were within 100m of one another.
iv. Planning
permission for the other 2 hotels was granted before the new local plan was
adopted which contained location and quality criteria which were grounds for
refusal of planning permission.
v. The
development would distort the local area with a high density of budget hotel
rooms when housing should be a priority.
vi. Attention
to the local plan and national guidance regarding sustainability was deficient.
The cumulative impact of the development was a relevant consideration that was
absent from the officer’s report.
Mr Garth Hanlon, (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support
of the application.
A written statement prepared by Councillor Nicky Massey, (Abbey Ward
Councillor) was circulated to the Committee.
Councillor Richard Johnson, (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee and raised the following issues:
i.
The new hotel and change of use was not justified
in the proposed location.
ii.
The application was based on two assertions.
Firstly, that demand for hotel rooms was higher than anticipated in 2012 when
detailed hotel demand modelling was undertaken (Hotel Futures report) which
underpinned the local plan and secondly that the proposed hotel was a new category
of ‘super budget’ hotel that was not
considered in 2012 and therefore represented new demand.
iii.
The Hotel Futures report modelled three scenarios;
high, medium and low growth and then calculated the number of rooms required to
meet the demand for each scenario. The
high growth scenario applied higher demand rates than those the applicant had
used within the planning application to claim new need.
iv. The Hotel Futures
report forecast leisure growth at 4.5%p.a however, the applicant had forecast only
3.8%p.a and that business growth would be 2% p.a
compared to the applicant’s forecast of 1.7%p.a.
v.
The New Premier Inn at the Grafton Centre would
mean that provision of hotel rooms would far exceed the projected demand.
vi. The forecasts
contained within the Hotel Future’s report that underpinned the Local Plan
should be adhered to.
vii. Recent analysis
had demonstrated a weakening of the market and an excess of supply of rooms.
viii. Drew attention to
the competition in the market from Airbnb that was not considered within the
officer’s report or by the applicant.
ix.
Questioned the rationale that the hotel represented
a distinct new hotel category (Super-budget).
x.
The impact upon the local area was
unjustified.
Councillor Haf Davies, (Abbey Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee and raised the following issues:
i.
The environmental impacts would be unacceptable
should planning permission be granted.
ii.
The number of bedrooms on a fairly small site
represented very high intensity use which could only be achieved by excavating
a basement level and no provision for amenity space.
iii.
Pre-application advice contained concerns of the
case officer regarding over development stating that the intensity of the
proposed use would not be appropriate for the site.
iv.
Proposed drainage for the development was not
sustainable as it required constant pumping and questioned whether planned
mitigation would be effective.
v.
There would be a severe adverse impact on air
quality resulting from approximately 76 arrivals and 76 departures daily from
the hotel based on estimated occupancy rates.
vi.
The application did not support objective 3 of the
Council’s Climate Change Strategy to reduce emissions from transport by
promoting sustainable transport, reducing car travel congestion, and encouraging
behaviour change. The proposed site was
located in an air quality management area it was also an air pollution
hotspot.
vii.
Questioned the accuracy of the traffic movement
forecasts undertaken by the applicant.
viii. A 90 room hotel
would generate significant noise and disturbance for local residents from taxis
dropping off and collecting guests.
ix.
The lack of amenity within the hotel would result
in guests congregating in the street and causing disturbance.
Councillor Whitehead (Abbey Division Councillor for Cambridgeshire
County Council) submitted a written statement to the Committee that expressed
the following issues.
i.
The applicant’s low estimates of the number of
vehicle movements appeared unrealistic and would add to congestion and cause
severe harm.
ii.
The application would impact upon road safety as it
presented an increased risk of vehicle collision.
iii.
The Newmarket Road/Coldhams
Lane junction was exceptionally dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and the
application would increase risk.
iv.Overnight parking
stress in the area surrounding the proposed hotel that would be exacerbated by
the proposed development.
During the course of
discussion Members raised a number of concerns regarding the application
including, overdevelopment, transport and loss of amenity.
The Chairman established
that the application was likely to be refused on being put to the vote and with
the agreement of the Committee proposed that Members were minded to refuse
planning permission for the following reasons:
i. The proposed development would conflict with policy 77
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 due to location of site partly in a
residential road. There was also insufficient evidence submitted that
demonstrated the need for accommodation over and above that identified in the
Hotel Futures report 2012 on which the policy was framed. On being put to the vote the reason for
refusal was carried 6 votes in favour and 1
abstention.
ii. Insufficient information had been submitted with the
application that demonstrated the development would not have an unacceptable
transport impact. The proposal was
therefore contrary to policy 81 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018, notably
paragraph 9.22 which aimed to achieve a zero increase or reduction in car traffic
in locations including Newmarket Road. On being put to the vote the reason for
refusal was carried unanimously.
iii. Due to absence of amenities in the proposed hotel and
the absence of adequate pick up and drop arrangements on site, the development
would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of
adjacent residential properties through increased comings and goings and
increased numbers of visitors congregating on Godesdone
Road and increased vehicle (notably taxi)in the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
policy 35 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
On being put to the vote the reason for refusal was carried 6 votes in favour and 1 against.
Following officer advice the Committee unanimously resolved to move a ‘minded to’ resolution to refuse planning permission contrary to the officer recommendation for the reasons set out above.