Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the redevelopment of the existing bus turning head and redundant service area to provide a new hotel and ancillary restaurant (Use Class C1), new public realm (urban park) and landscape improvements together with associated highway works to East Road providing new bus stops and pedestrian and cycle routes.

 

The Senior Planner updated her report:

       i.          Referenced paragraph 8.19. The Environmental Health Officer had suggested that the developer could make a financial contribution towards additional electric vehicle charging points at the Grafton East Car Park to mitigate against any impacts to air quality resulting from the proposal. The Senior Planner considered that the charging points were not required so did not recommend seeking contributions.

     ii.          Would seek delegated powers to deal with the detail of the recommended conditions relative to the triggers for conditions 5, 6, 19, 23 and 36.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident:

       i.          Expressed concern the building was unattractive, too big/bulky and too high.

     ii.          There was no parking provided on-site. Visitors may park in nearby residential streets some of which had restrictions limiting parking to residents only between 09:00-17:00, except for Stafford Street which was 09:00-20:00. The hotel signposted visitors to park in local public car parks, at £18/day. It was disappointing that the developer had not negotiated a discounted rate for hotel visitors to use the car park.

   iii.          The tree lined boulevard mentioned in the Supplementary Planning Document was an aspiration. The application would not deliver the two lines of trees along East Road.

   iv.          The proposed hotel would dominate neighbours.

    v.          The application would cause pollution. Requested an air monitoring station be included in the development to monitor the impact of (hotel) traffic on air quality.

   vi.          East Road would become single carriageway in future.

 

Mr Newton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee to outline four concerns about the application:

       i.          Trees on East Road. The application would not deliver the two lines of trees along East Road as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document; the opportunity to secure them should not be missed.

     ii.          Height of new building. Flats opposite the application site had two floors below ground level and would be visually dominated by the proposed hotel.

   iii.          Insufficient bike racks for staff and visitors. It was unacceptable for hotel guests to store cycles in their rooms due to insufficient parking provision within the application.

   iv.          Travel Plan for hotel.

a.    Some neighbouring residential streets had restrictions limiting parking to residents only between 09:00-17:00. Other near-by streets had no restrictions. Hotel guests could take residents’ spaces.

b.    The Developer should have done a deal with the Council to provide discounted parking fees in local car parks. This was not something which could be controlled by a planning condition and the Committee should be aware of this prior to making its decision.

 

Councillor Bick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

       i.          He expressed scepticism regarding the proposal.

     ii.          Acknowledged the Applicant was willing to discuss issues with stakeholders.

   iii.          Welcomed Greater Cambridge Partnership’s (GCP) future plans to narrow East Road to manage road space. This could impact on congestion and cycle safety as the East Road work was not being undertaken as part of a joined-up scheme.

   iv.          GCP had not adopted a comprehensive Transport Strategy to tackle congestion.

    v.          It would be hard for the Committee to reject the application based on the impact of a future GCP Transport Strategy.

   vi.          The application would humanise the brutal streetscape in East Road. There were unattractive buildings and four lanes of traffic at present. The application could improve these in conjunction with the GCP Transport Strategy.

 vii.          Sought clarification on three questions that could be answered as part of the Committee’s discussion of this item:

a.    Referred to paragraph 6.3 of the Officer’s report and sought reassurance that further public realm improvements would be secured to the general area in future and this would not be limited to just the hotel application.

b.    Sought reassurance that if an extra crossing was installed in front of the hotel it would not negatively impact on the Burleigh/Norfolk Street crossing by making pedestrians wait longer.

c.    Sought reassurance that more than two bus stops would be provided if required in future.

 

The Transport Assessment Manager addressed the Committee to clarify the Highway Authority’s position:

       i.          Summarised the GCP/Highway Authority’s response to transport concerns.

     ii.          Gave reassurance that if an extra crossing was installed in front of the hotel it would not negatively impact on the Burleigh/Norfolk Street crossing.

   iii.          Gave reassurance that as the area changed there would be scope to change the transport provision eg the number of bus stops.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer addressed the Committee to clarify the planning policy position regarding the provision of hotel rooms.

       i.          The number of hotel rooms expected in and around Cambridge was 2,500. Approximately 1,000 had been built since the 2012 Visitor Accommodation Study was undertaken, a further 600 had planning permission. The study is due to be refreshed as the situation had changed since 2012.

     ii.          This planning application would bring strategic benefits to the area particularly as the number of visitors to the City was increasing.

 

The Committee:

 

Considered using the Adjourned Decision Protocol (ADP). The Committee resolved (by 5 votes to 0) it was minded to refuse the application. Members specified design; scale; the drop off facilities for disabled guests; highway work impact on residents; the over provision of hotel rooms in Cambridge; and highway safety as indicative of minded to refuse reasons.

 

Members were invited to consider deferring today’s determination of the application rather than to apply the ADP because of the nature of the minded to refuse reasons.

 

Councillor Page-Croft proposed and Councillor Thornburrow seconded a proposal to defer a decision on the application without invoking the ADP.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to defer determination of the application to allow for further consideration/work to address the indicative minded to refuse reasons relating to:

       i.          Design, scale and massing.

     ii.          Drop off arrangements for disabled guests.

   iii.          Impact of the highway works on residents to the south of the site on East Road.

   iv.          Cumulative impact of overprovision of hotel rooms.

    v.          Highway safety in respect of public realm improvements to East Road.

   vi.          Lack of sufficient accessible cycle parking.