Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
12 19/1651/FUL - New South Court, Emmanuel College, St Andrews Street PDF 419 KB
Minutes:
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 1/3rd
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.