Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of a building comprising student accommodation (C2) (113 rooms in 14no flats), including an ancillary reception building, part change of use of existing building from non-residential institution (D1) to cafe (A3), including outdoor terrace with associated development

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application.

 

The representations made on behalf of Friends of St Matthew’s Piece and Cambridge Past Present and Future covered the following issues:

      i.         The Cambridge Local Plan protects resident’s quality of life, heritage and environmental assets, which was threatened by this application. Hundreds of objections were lodged, without a single supporting comment.

    ii.         Planning law required applications to be determined in accordance with the Local Plan. This placed a heavy burden on any applicant to show why a decision should be taken contrary to that Plan. The Officer’s report demonstrated that the application substantially breached many Local Plan Policies.

   iii.         Objected to this application in the strongest terms and supported the officer’s recommendation of refusal. Objections were supported by officers and key consultees and focussed on how the application failed to comply with Local Plan policies. 

  iv.         If approved, the development would fatally undermine the Local Plan. The proposals would significantly harm the Conservation Area, the glorious mature trees the community prized so highly, disrupt the resident’s only park and its tranquillity, and despoil residential amenity.  The building would dominate and overshadow protected open space and the modest homes that encircled St Matthew’s Piece.

    v.         Under Policy 60, any proposal significantly taller than the surrounding built form must demonstrate that it had no adverse impact on either neighbouring buildings or open spaces in terms of “overlooking or overshadowing”. The development breached Policy 60d.

  vi.         For 4,300 residents, St Matthew's Piece is the park nearest their home. Proximity is of particular significance to people with disabilities and their carers, and for those with impaired mobility due to advanced age or the challenges of looking after young children. Surrounding properties included flats with little or no private garden or compact terraced homes with very small gardens. During the current pandemic, St Matthew’s Piece had been essential to preserving resident’s mental and physical health. Its vital role as a public open space was indisputable.

 vii.         Asked Members to refuse this application as there were no substantive public benefit arguments in support of the proposals.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of York Street:

      i.         No-one had a positive view of the application.

    ii.         It failed to enhance the character of the area.

   iii.         The application caused overlooking / overshadowing.

  iv.         It would diminish the amount of open space which allowed people to meet safely and socially distanced.

    v.         Beautiful trees would be lost.

  vi.         The building was too high and the design did not fit with the setting.

 vii.         Streets surrounding the development were narrow and the development would increase traffic and exacerbate anti-social driving in the area.

viii.         Expressed concerns regarding the delivery of construction materials.

  ix.         The benefit of the open space to residents and their mental health should be taken into consideration.

 

The following statement was read out by the Committee Manager on behalf of Cambridge School of Visual and Performing Arts (CSVPA) in support of the application:

        i.       Expressed disappointment regarding the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission for the proposal to create a purpose built student accommodation at St Matthews Centre.

      ii.        Since CSVPA had launched as a standalone school in 2014, St Matthew’s Centre had provided an important education facility for them. The Centre continued to be central to their planned growth as they further developed their performing arts courses.

    iii.        CSVPA vision was to grow the talent pipeline for the creative industries from 16 plus and to develop visual arts digital talent from games design to data visualisation and other such subjects.

    iv.       The College’s existing under 18 year old accommodation was fully utilised with no opportunities for expansion. The site at Sturton Street with its existing Performing Arts Building provided an unrivalled opportunity to support the work and vision of the College and its growth aspirations for 16-18 age accommodation.

      v.       The integration of new student accommodation with St Matthew’s Centre, where students were taught, meant the space/facility would be uniquely and ideally suited to meet the needs of their students with a localized ‘campus’.

    vi.       The provision of purpose-built student accommodation would also allow CSVPA to have greater direct management of students and a greater capacity to support the learning, health and wellbeing of the students. A strong emphasis on pastoral care was provided and all under 18 year olds boarding were managed by a highly trained team of professional House Parents who would reside at the property. All students must obey the College’s clear conduct rules and curfew times to be back in their rooms. There was also a 24 hour emergency number which could be called, as well as a telephone number for the House Parent.

  vii.        CSVPA trusted the Committee could recognise the significant opportunity that the proposal represented in supporting the continued growth of a Cambridge based institution and its ability to compete nationally and internationally, together with adding to the vibrancy of the City.

 

Rob Hopwood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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

        i.       The drawing did not convey the true scale of the development.

      ii.        Asked the developer not to proceed with the development.

    iii.        Noted that despite negative responses to the public consultation the developer submitted an application very similar to the application consulted on.

    iv.       Referred to the protected open space and the fact that the stairs would intrude onto protected open space.

      v.       Existing dwellings would be over-shadowed by the application.

    vi.       It was an enormous proposal, proposed on a park.

  vii.        Sunlight would be taken from buildings if the development went ahead.

 viii.        It was imposing on the street scape.

    ix.       The proposal sought to ignore requirements in the local plan.

      x.       CSVPA needed to recognise that the accommodation would not be guaranteed for their school. CSVPA could not always guarantee that they would lease the building.

    xi.       Requested an additional reason for refusal based on policy 60d, which was concerned with structures significantly taller than surroundings overall by virtue of excessive scale, height and depth, which would result in adverse impact in terms of overlooking and overshadowing.

 

Councillor Davies (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

        i.       Neighbouring residents to the development were Abbey residents.

      ii.        The breadth of objections made clear the number of local plan policies breached by the proposal.

    iii.        Policy 60d needed to be added to any reasons for refusal. The structure breached the existing skyline.

    iv.       The applicants should have demonstrated that there were no adverse impacts.

      v.       There would be an adverse impact on New Street, the development would clearly overlook and overshadow this street.

    vi.       Sun light would be blocked by the development at noon and at certain times of the day.

  vii.        The development would overshadow and adversely impact 89 New Street which had solar panels. Interference of solar panels was a material planning consideration.

 viii.        Referred to Policy 67 and the protection of open space. The development would damage the open space. St Matthews Piece was important to the riverside community. It was the only green space walking back from Mill Road, the Grafton Centre and the railway.

    ix.       This was precious open space in Petersfield and to Abbey ward residents. 

 

Councillor Davey (Petersfield Ward Councillor) read out the following statement from County Councillor Jones.

        i.       This is an instance of overdevelopment on a site that was adjacent to one of the few public open spaces in the densely populated Petersfield area. The County Councillor also lived locally and regularly used this area for walking and cycling.

      ii.        Challenged the claim in the Bidwells’ report that a shortage of student accommodation currently existed (para 6.17), given the less than full capacity evidence from other sites and the likely impact of online learning. There was no evidence for the claim contained in the report.

    iii.        Challenged the framing of the 'moderate adverse impact' (para. 6.46) that Bidwells set out. They argued that the admitted 'moderate adverse impact' could be reduced to being 'minor' or even 'negligible' (para. 49) by the additional biodiversity/landscaping.

    iv.       The presentation of the 'walkway' to St Matthew’s Piece from New Street as an 'accessibility' gain overlooked the fact that over 100 plus students were likely to be reducing the accessibility for local residents.

      v.       As a local councillor, he challenged the assumptions made about access and travel. Similar claims had been made for other student developments at planning stage claiming that student travel was almost exclusively by cycle and foot, yet subsequently residents have reported noise and inconvenience, caused in part by high use of taxis and late night activity. There was no date given for the travel survey in Appendix B so it was unclear if this was a summer or winter snapshot of existing travel modes and unreliable as a predictor of a new student group.

    vi.       The earlier claims (para.3.13) about no parking spaces except for disabled changed in para. 6.75 to 5 disabled and 2 others. The purpose of the ‘others’ was unclear.

 

Councillor Davey (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.               Was not against landmark buildings however the development disrespected the community where the development was going to be.

ii.             Asked for a further reason for refusal to be included based on policy 60d.

iii.            Noted the Fire and Rescue Service response had not been received.

iv.           The applicant failed to comply with local plan requirements.

v.             Referred to policy 23, the Eastern Gateway SPD -  applications had to comply with a duty to enhance the character of the area. The Applicant stated that the effect of the development only partially complied with this policy.

vi.           The special character of Cambridge needed to be protected.

vii.          The project was out of scale.

viii.        Noted policy 57 of the local plan stated that high quality buildings could be supported if they had a positive impact.

ix.           Cycle parking was inappropriate.

x.             Referred to policy 59 of the local plan and noted that the contribution was negative.

xi.           Referred to policy 60d and noted that there was a requirement to demonstrate that there was no adverse impact, the application could not do this.

xii.          The St Mathew’s Piece had been in existence since 1898 and was on the only designated park in the Petersfield ward.

xiii.        The application did not recognise the importance of St Matthew’s Piece.

xiv.        Referred to local plan policy 67 and noted that students would significantly impact on St Matthew’s Piece and would harm the character of  it.

xv.         Referred to local plan policy 71 and noted that the open space had been essential during the pandemic.

xvi.        Noted that the trees within the area were significant and nothing should compromise them.

xvii.      No-one supported the application, it was a bad application, in the wrong place.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report subject to an:

i.               Amendment to condition 1 to include a reference regarding a threat to crime; and

ii.             Amendment to condition 5 to reference loss of open space.

 

Committee delegated authority to officers to amend the reasons for refusal in accordance with i and ii above.