Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing multi-storey car park and erection of an aparthotel (Use Class C1) alongside an underground public car park, public cycle store and associated works

 

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment sheet and revising the recommendation:

      i.         Amend condition 19 (deliveries/servicing).

    ii.         New conditions as requested by the Local Lead Flood Authority.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·      Objector’s Agent on behalf of The Maypole Public House and 8 Portugal Place.

·      Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

·      Resident of Park Parade.

·      Local resident.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

      i.          Any car parking provision, except blue badge, should be minimised.

    ii.         The aisle width in some bike storage areas was too small for different types of bikes. Requested a planning condition requiring appropriate parking provision for cargo bikes.

   iii.         Referred to section 7.2 of the Officer’s report and stated the reported number of representations in support/objection was inaccurate. 109 objections appeared not to be referenced.

  iv.         Requested the Committee defer considering the application until all representations could be considered and a balanced response presented. Suggested a sound planning decision could not be made if all representations had not been fully considered.

    v.         Expressed specific concerns regarding:

a.    Provision of car parking.

                                              i.     Queried if the car park provided the appropriate amount of spaces.

                                             ii.     Queried if apart-hotel occupants would park in residential areas.

b.    Gas usage from the Energy Station.

c.    Public toilet provision.

d.    Ground water.

e.    Vibration and noise.

f.     Impact on local businesses during construction period.

  vi.         Requested plans for the hotel be scaled down.

 

Andrew Heselton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Porrer (Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.         Wished to echoed comments made by the Objectors in today’s committee.

    ii.         Suggested the Council would breach its own Local Plan Policy if the application were approved due to the loss of public toilets:

a.    There was no proven lack of need to justify removal.

b.    There were no nearby alternative facilities.

   iii.         Disabled facilities were a key feature for the town centre. Expressed concern at the loss of the accessible toilet in Park street.

  iv.         Noted the Officer stated in his verbal introduction to Committee that the planning application caused a conflict in policy.

    v.         Queried if some car parking spaces could be taken out and replaced with toilet facilities.

 

The Director of Planning and Economic Development said:

      i.         The adopted Local Plan sought to protect community space. The planning application did not breach Local Plan priorities, the Council was following its development plan. Members had to balance competing priorities when making their decision. The loss of the public toilets had to be balanced against the benefits from the application.

    ii.         Referred to section 7.2 of the Officer’s report and stated the reported number of representations in support/objection was incorrect and should read as follows:

 

143 letters of representation have been received as a result of this process – 116 27 in support, and 27 116 objecting.

 

   iii.         Although the Officer’s report contained a typographical error where the numbers of representations in support and objection had been switched, the report accurately summarised material issues from the representations.

  iv.         Gave a verbal summary of representations to Members of the Planning Committee so they could be confident they were aware of all issues from the report and Planning Portal on the City Council website. The Director referred to issues from the report and Planning Portal during the deliberation in committee.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.         To amend triggers (conditions 27 and 28) regarding bird and bee hotel.

    ii.         Amend condition 13 (landscaping) to require tree replacements for 20 years rather than 5

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.         Public access to the café and courtyard be protected through condition.

    ii.         Cycle parking provision.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report; [and]

    ii.         delegated authority for Officers to make the following amendments/additions:

a.    Amend condition 13 (landscaping) to require tree replacements for 20 years rather than 5;

b.    Amend condition 19 (deliveries/servicing) to provide an exception for food deliveries to individual rooms;

c.    Change the triggers for conditions 27 and 28 (ecology) from prior to occupation to pre-above ground works;

d.    New condition to secure public accessibility to New Jordan’s Yard;

e.    New conditions as requested by the Local Lead Flood Authority;

f.     New condition(s) regarding archaeology in liaison with the County Council.

g.    New condition seeking a revised cycle store  layout.