Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the proposed erection of two new buildings comprising:

      i.          5,351sqm (GEA) of Class B1(a)/ Class B1(b) floorspace including ancillary accommodation/ facilities with associated plant;

     ii.          162 cycle parking spaces, and 8 off-gauge cycle spaces for Block F2 and an Aparthotel (Class C1) comprising 125 suites, terrace;

   iii.          ancillary accommodation and facilities with multi-storey car park for Network Rail (total GEA 12,153sqm) comprising 206 car parking spaces and 34 cycle parking spaces for Block B2 with associated plant;

   iv.          hard and soft landscaping;

    v.          permanent access from Devonshire Road to the Cambridge Station Car Park, utilising the existing pedestrian and cycle access, restricted to emergency access to the railway only.

 

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the pre-Committee amendments to recommendation on the amendment sheet.

 

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

·       The Chair of South Petersfield Residents Association.

·       Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

      i.          The design is not sufficiently safe and attractive for a busy cycling and walking route.

     ii.          The B2 building footprint is bigger than in the outline application.

   iii.          Queried where taxis would over rank when not in the car park.

   iv.          More cycle parking was required.

    v.          The Chisholm Trail would be one of the most heavily used cycling routes in the city.

   vi.          Refuse lorries would have to reverse along the northern access route, so a segregated cycle route was needed on this.

 vii.          Asked for the application to be refused for the following reasons:

a.    The footprint of building F2 would block the cycle route.

b.    The mass of building B2 and its proximity to Devonshire Road was damaging to the character of the Conservation Area.

viii.          The Applicant and Network Rail should review the proposed design as it changed since the initial application.

   ix.          Expressed concern:

a.    That the Chisholm Trail was not being protected as per Local Plan Policy 80.

b.    About safety:

                                                   i.     Shared space by cycles and vehicles.

                                                  ii.     Sharp corners.

                                                iii.     Poor visibility.

    x.          The Applicant tentatively agreed to review the design of the northern access, but no progress appears to have been made about the southern part of the site.

   xi.          Department for Transport Cycle infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20) principles were not being met eg roundabout design.

 

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

 

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

i.                Had written to the Applicant when the application was submitted to ask why several elements of the Local Plan Policies were being ignored in their designs. Some points were then added eg electric charging points in the car park.

ii.               Water supply for the city was a concern. New buildings should harvest rain through grey water recycling facilities (to respond to climate change). The buildings in the application did not appear to do so.

iii.             The F2 office block would overshadow neighbouring residences and create a sense of enclosure.

iv.             The F2 building footprint was now bigger than in outline plans.

v.              The proximity of F2 and B2 buildings would create a ‘canyon effect’.

vi.             Changes to the road layout did not address safety concerns for cyclists and walkers.

vii.           There was too much conflict between cyclists and pedestrians in the station square.

viii.         A segregated cycle route was needed between F2 and B2 buildings and behind the square so people could access the station.

ix.             The station area already had lots of office space, no more was needed. Housing should be provided instead. Particularly as COVID-19 has shown people can/prefer to work from home.

x.              It was preferable to make some of the office space housing now, rather than trying to [retrospectively] convert it later when the housing may not meet space standards.

xi.             The B2 hotel and car park had a larger footprint than allowed in the outline permission. It would loom over nearby residences to a greater extent than expected when outline permission was given.

xii.           Requested the application be refused for the following reasons:

a.    It failed to respond to climate change as per Local Plan Policy 28.

b.    F2 would impact on local residences.

c.    Office space should not be retrospectively be converted into housing space.

d.    The gap was too narrow between the office blocks.

e.    The B2 hotel would extend too close to the cycle route and dominate local housing.

 

The Committee:

 

Only those members who attended the meeting on 17 June took part in the discussion/vote on this item. Councillors Smart (Chair), Baigent (Vice Chair), Green, McQueen, Porrer, Thornburrow and Tunnacliffe.

 

Councillor Page-Croft did not take part in the discussion or decision making for this item.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Members proposed draft ‘minded to’ reasons for refusal which were re-worded by Officers into a format for the minutes. Members resolved (by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to accept both reasons for ‘minded to’ refusal and the wording therein.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

      i.          The proposed development fails to provide high quality cycling infrastructure commensurate with Cambridge as the leading cycling city in the UK and fails to demonstrate it is compatible with the objectives of and safeguards the safety and prioritisation of pedestrians and cycling in the area including the Chisholm Trail. This is because the movement, safety and promotion of cycling as an active transport mode for all users both travelling through the site and for those accessing the Cambridge Railway Station / Cycle Point and utilising the strategic cycle network in the CB1 area, is not prioritised through the provision of a physically segregated and protected cycle route. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 25, 56, 57, 59 and 80 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018), the NPPF (Feb 2019) paragraphs 104 and 109 and Local Transport Note 1/20, Cycle Infrastructure Design (DfT).

     ii.          By virtue of the scale, massing and footprint of building B2 in close proximity to Carter Bridge and in regard of views from Devonshire Road, the proposed building would appear visually cramped, overly prominent and detract from the character and appearance of the existing area and setting of the adjacent Mill Road Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 55, 56, 57 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and NPPF (Feb 2019) paragraphs 124 and 196.