Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the redevelopment of land at rear of 1 Regent Street, and works to Furness Lodge, Janus House and Camden Court for the provision of student accommodation, a student bar, lecture and education facilities and associated landscaping and enabling works.

The Planning Officer asked the Committee to note the additional conditions recommended for inclusion in the planning permission (if Members were minded to grant planning permission) which are contained in the Amendment Sheet.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Had no view either way on the principle of the development although had concerns regarding cycle access which needed a s106 obligation.

    ii.         The cycle access as proposed would result in illegal cycling. The developer should be required to fund a contraflow on the street.

   iii.         To leave the site and go into town the developer was suggesting, cyclists would turn out of the development in the opposite direction, move on to a pavement which doesn’t have a dropped curb, negotiate bollards, go round Hobbs Pavillion, cycle past a busy route past the hotel, wait at the traffic light by Pizza Hut, turn right and then head into town.

  iv.         What would happen in practice was that students would take the most direct cycling route, which was 1/3^rd of the length, had no obstructions or mixing with pedestrians. This would potentially be dangerous if vehicles did not expect cyclists.

    v.         The developer should be required to provide a contraflow lane and this should be secured through the s106 Agreement.

  vi.         Around Cambridge some one-way streets have been made 2 way for cyclists. This was one of the few remaining anomalies and now was an opportunity to sort this one out.

 vii.         Referred to a contraflow system which has been agreed with the County Council for a hotel development on Harvest Way.

viii.         The street was wide enough for 3 cars and was therefore wide enough for a contraflow lane.

  ix.         The Highways Officer hadn’t responded to his objection and had responded to a cycling section further away from the proposed development.

Fiona Reynolds (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) 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 on the Amendment Sheet; and

    ii.         delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, to include further conditions and amendments to recommended conditions as follows:

a.    amend condition 15 so that ducting infrastructure is included to future proof the car park;

b.    revise condition 26 specifically making reference to BS6187;

c.    an additional boundary treatment condition or by specific reference to the boundary wall in Condition 21 Hard and Soft Landscaping;

d.    amend the green roof condition to include maintenance in perpetuity

and

   iii.         delegated authority to officers to include informatives in respect of:

a.    sprinklers in the basement

b.    boundary wall treatment to set out how the boundary wall will be amended to break up the visual appearance of the development.