Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
38 20/04826/FUL - Lockton House, Clarendon Road PDF 404 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for full planning
permission.
The application sought approval for the demolition of
Lockton House and 1&2 Brooklands Avenue and the replacement with two new buildings
comprising offices (Use Class E), flexible commercial space (Use Class E) to
include a cafe, underground parking and utilities, erection of covered
walkways, electricity substation, bin stores, access, cycle parking and
associated hard and soft landscaping.
The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to
updated condition wording on the amendment sheet and revised recommendation
wording in his presentation:
The recommendation is to APPROVE the
proposal subject to:
· delegated authority for officers to complete the signing
of a S106 Agreement to secure the financial contribution for the Chisholm
Trail;
· planning conditions as set out in the Officer’s report
and the amendment sheet.
The Committee received a representation in objection to
the application from a representative of Brooklands
Avenue and Area Residents' Association:
i.
There
was adequate space designated for office provision in the Local Plan 2018. This
site was not allocated for new office development in the Local Plan and lay
outside the Opportunity Area described under Policy 25. Therefore, this
proposal contravenes the Local Plan.
ii.
This
was overdevelopment on mainly residential narrow roads. Blocks A and B together
would have over three times the existing floor area of Lockton House. Block A
would extend south from Brooklands Avenue by around 40 metres, creating an
unacceptable loss of privacy and sense of enclosure for the remaining terrace,
which includes residential use.
iii.
Demolishing
1 and 2 Brooklands Avenue, opposite the Royal Albert Homes, to build Block A,
with large picture windows and a commercial café at ground floor level, would
destroy the integrity of a Victorian terrace, and prejudice its future. The
design, with an entrance wider than the bay window next door, was inappropriate
and damaged the character of the terrace. This terrace makes an important
visual contribution to the street scene. It should remain intact.
iv.
Unlike Lockton House,
which is placed side-on to Clarendon Road, the bulk of Block B would present
five storeys of excessive massing and scale on a wider frontage, with three
roof terraces. It would be built right up to the eastern and southern
boundaries and loom incongruously over the two storey houses opposite and next
to them. Replacement of Lockton House by Block A and B would fail to preserve
or enhance the Conservation Area. A screen of 42 mature evergreen trees at the
southern boundary would be lost. Both Blocks would overshadow and overlook
neighbouring properties having an adverse impact on residential amenity. These
buildings are out-of-scale and out of character for the Conservation Area and
harm the setting of the Grade II listed Royal Albert Homes.
v.
The
Design and Conservation Panel have twice given this an Amber verdict, meaning
significant changes are required. One member abstained, believing the case for
demolition of Lockton House had not been made. The Panel said the footprint
should be reduced, and Block B made less overbearing to Clarendon Road. To
quote from the October 2020 minutes: “the Panel believes the current proposal
is treading the boundary of overdevelopment and, indeed, may have strayed over
that boundary.” I think it has.
vi.
This
application would be overdevelopment due to inappropriate scale, height and
excessive massing. Both Blocks would have an adverse impact on neighbours’
living conditions, and would harm the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a Brooklands Avenue
resident:
i.
His house would be
damaged by this application.
ii.
If the application
were approved there would be an 11m high wall along his boundary rising to 14m
on the corner and then continuing back at that height for 30m to link with
Lockton House. It would feel like being at the end of a canyon.
iii.
The proposed
entrance to Lockton House next to his front door would create an access for 500
people and provide ground level views into his garden and from the corner of
the garden high level windows will provide intrusive views not only into No.3
but also the whole of the Conservation Area.
iv.
Expressed concern
that the development was occurring in a terrace, this was unacceptable whether
in a Conservation Area or not.
v.
Suggested that if
residents wished to extend their terrace properties to the extent of their
garden, permission would be (rightly) refused because of the overwhelming
damage to neighbours.
vi.
The rebuilding and extending of 1 and 2
Brooklands Avenue in this application had not been considered as work to the
terrace but only as an addition to Lockton House. The effect on its neighbours
was the most important aspect to consider which had not been done. Despite a
number of requests no planning officer has visited to see the effect.
vii.
This application
would have a negative impact on 1-7 Brooklands Avenue which was an exceptional
terrace. The application openly stated that it intended to create a public
entrance to Lockton House within the terrace which is 100m away.
viii.
There should be no
connection between Lockton House and Brooklands Avenue. Any application for
either should be quite separate.
ix.
Expressed concern
the application was an exercise in over development, building tight up to all
boundaries to triple the floorspace in order to make it economic to demolish
perfectly sound and valuable buildings to build more office space.
x.
This would destroy
the nature of 1 -7 Brooklands Avenue and overwhelm the Conservation Area.
xi.
If the Application
were granted the Conservation Area designation should be removed since this is
exactly what the proposal does.
Mr Eaton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application.
Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application through a written statement read by Committee Manager:
i.
Submitted a statement in opposition to
the development contrary to the officer’s report because:
·
The proposal would
harm the Conservation Area.
·
The negative impact on
the residential amenity.
·
There is significant
impact on tree cover.
ii.
Issues with respect to Conservation
Area:
a.
Failed to enhance or preserve the
character of Conservation Area. It does not comply with Policies 55 and 61 (it
would dwarf the surrounding buildings, especially the terraced houses and would
treble the size of the current block). Significant negative impact on the “fine
group of buildings” (as The Conservation Appraisal states) that are 1-7
Brooklands Avenue.
b.
Policy 60: the proposed height will be
21.2m and built significantly closer to surrounding roads and buildings. The
current building only reaches this height at a recessed sixth story, therefore
with a much lower impact than the proposed design. Members must take into
account the aspect as well as the absolute height. There are also roof terraces
on Block B. There would surely be significant issues with overlooking
surrounding buildings and residences.
c.
There was already adequate space
designated for office provision in the Local Plan. Lockton House and 1 and 2
Brooklands Avenue are not identified as sites for office development within the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. Policy 25: ‘Cambridge Railway Station, Hills Road
Corridor to the City Centre Opportunity Area’ does not identify either Lockton
House or 1 and 2 Brooklands Avenue as Proposal Sites and these three buildings
are not shown within the ‘Opportunity Area.’ The current proposal for
over-intensive office development did not align with this.
iii.
Significant impact on residential
amenity:
a.
Multiple planning documents misidentify
6 Brooklands Avenue as an office building. It is a residence, immediately north
of a 21.2m high building. The impact on daylight would undoubtedly be
significant, contrary to the officer’s report.
b.
The 14metre high public walkway causes
significant privacy concerns for the residential dwellings that would be
immediately overlooked. Office workers can look directly into residents’
gardens and windows.
c.
The impact on number 3 Brooklands
Avenue was devastating.
d.
There have also been concerns raised
with respect to flooding:
· Flooding
of basements to properties will get
worse: ( February 2021 Ramboll
Basement Impact Assessment report, reference 1620007220-RAM-XX-XX-XX-X-0003)
identified that although there would be a change in groundwater flow direction,
the changes in groundwater elevation would be in the region of a few
centimetres at the location of nearby existing basements”.
· This
was likely to be significant given that these properties have had existing
issues with flooding, with knock on increases in insurance costs as well as the
direct risk.
iv.
Impact on tree cover:
a.
The removal of the 42 mature leylandii
trees and the loss of other trees is contrary to Policy 71.
b.
The justification of the removal of the
trees is that they are in poor condition. Questioned the point of the Tree
Preservation Order if subject trees can be removed due to the fact they have
not been sufficiently cared for.
v.
Environmental considerations:
a.
The proposal is to demolish a
relatively recent building.
b.
The developers have completely
misrepresented the concept of whole life carbon in their claims. Given that
embodied carbon in new buildings is around half the total of the whole life
impact (source: Material Economics report) then the new building would have to
have net-negative operational emissions in order to have the whole life
performance they claim. This is clearly not the case.
c.
It was worth noting that the
calculation had been based on a 60-year design life which minimises the
annualised impact of embodied emissions associated with construction while the
developers propose knocking down a building far younger than 60 years.
d.
In addition, a 60-year design life
means that the building would still be standing in the 2080s. It did not meet
net zero standards for 2050, and there is no firm commitment to meet that
target.
e.
Furthermore, by presenting the impact
per occupant, the developers had flattered the calculation by dividing the
fixed costs over a far bigger site than the original. This was clearly not a
fair like-for-like comparison.
f.
Members would recall concerns they
raised at the last planning meeting about the development on Hills Road, which
was subsequently rejected. That concerned a development demolishing older
buildings aiming for a BREEAM outstanding rating. This development is
demolishing a newer building far better suited to refurbishment and the
proposal targets a less efficient energy and carbon performance. Asked Members
to apply the same level of scrutiny to this development, as it did not meet
Net-Zero by 2050 targets.
Councillor Jones (Ward County
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
As the local
County Councillor she strongly objected to the Lockton House and 1 & 2
Brooklands Avenue development on two
grounds:
a.
poor quality
and inaccuracy of the submission and
b.
cumulative
impact of traffic in the conservation area.
ii.
She thought
it was clear from the ongoing significant errors and omissions in the
documentation that the developers had no knowledge of the site and the area.
The documents consistently contained errors about location, traffic flows and
nearby buildings, which suggested they were ‘cut and pasted’ from another
development.
iii.
Talked with
the developers in October 2020 to raise issues about construction traffic,
increased traffic flows in the area and wider concerns about the cumulative
impact of motor traffic. Explained that severe disruption had required bollards
to be installed by the County Council to prevent
delivery lorries from blocking residents’ access. Was reassured that not only
were there to be fewer car parking spaces and more bike parking on site but
also that the ‘servicing’ and ‘deliveries’ required would be to a dedicated
delivery bay on Brooklands Avenue. The exception was only for ‘refuse
collection’ from Clarendon Road. The concerns Councillor Jones raised about
taxi traffic and drop-offs-pick-ups from the premises (and about construction
traffic access) therefore seemed to have been answered.
a.
Having read the
report of the meeting between Councillor Jones and developers, the Vectos
report (and its subsequent updates), she found that her concerns about traffic
were fully justified. Deliveries were now planned for Clarendon Road as well as
Brooklands Avenue, with Vectos assessing this as a likely option for drivers.
All taxi pick-ups and drop-offs would move to Clarendon Road too. But with no
planned delivery bays or pick-up/drop-off bays the potential for congestion and
conflict will be significant. This was precisely what she and local residents
tried to avoid by getting bollards installed through our successful County
Local Highway Improvement scheme.
b.
Clarendon Road and
surrounding streets are part of a Conservation Area already subject to
increasing traffic from large-scale nearby developments, yet it was assumed
that local pay and display space was available for employees on these streets.
Spaces in Clarendon and Fitzwilliam Roads have been over-subscribed in recent
(non-pandemic) years. It was also clear that, with 500 office jobs, this
residential area would experience traffic pressures. The Vectos report expected
people to drive to the site for meetings, since the report flagged “a maximum
stay of 8 hours, therefore suitable for employees’ and notes likely problems
with the “lack of two way working” on Clarendon Road.
c.
Clarendon Road and
Brooklands Avenue were not built for heavy traffic, contrary to the Vectos
report. The application would exacerbate existing traffic noise, flow, parking
and pollution issues.
iv.
To conclude: it seemed that the
developers have belatedly realised that the development would generate much
more car and lorry traffic than admitted and are altering their plans in an ad
hoc way. The Brooklands Avenue café would create more delivery pressures and
the deliberate shift of traffic to Clarendon Road will impose on this and
other Conservation Area streets in an unacceptable way.
Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
This application
was in fact two applications:
a. demolition of Lockton House and 1&2 Brooklands
Avenue.
b. replacement with two new buildings.
ii.
The current terrace
made an important visual contribution to the street scene.
iii.
Numbers 5 and 6
Clarendon Road were houses not offices. They would be particularly affected.
iv.
Suggested the
application did not meet Policies 55 and 61 of the Local Plan.
v.
Block B would loom
over the terrace.
vi.
Brookland Avenue
was already heavily used by pedestrians, cycles and vehicles. The application
would create a delivery bay for the site which would exacerbate traffic issues
in the area.
vii.
Expressed safety
concern that the delivery bay was in the middle of the site pedestrian
entrance. There had been various accidents in the area over the last five
years.
viii.
Did not agree
there was need for further office space in the city. Lockdown had shifted
demand from offices to home working.
ix.
It was not easy to
convert offices to housing if use permission were changed in future.
x.
The application
would adversely affect houses in the Clarendon Road Conservation Area. This
would lead to loss of amenity, light and privacy. Office blocks would overlook
nearby houses. Expressed concern about:
a. out of character with the area;
b. overbearing;
c. massing;
d. out of scale;
e. over development of site.
f. loss of trees that would be removed so application could
be built.
xi.
The footprint of
the application should be reduced.
Councillor Porrer proposed amendments
to the Officer’s recommendation to:
i.
control the size
of heavy commercial vehicles delivery times;
ii.
investigate if a condition could be implemented to retain public access
by preventing the courtyard from being gated;
iii.
planters should remain on the
outside of the terrace area.
The amendments were carried unanimously.
Councillor Smart proposed an amendment
to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting maximum levels
of carbon reduction as outlined in the Sustainability Statement.
This amendment was 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.
formal determination this was not
Environmental Impact Assessment
development;
ii.
the prior completion of an Agreement
under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated authority
granted to Officers to negotiate, secure and complete such an Agreement
on terms considered appropriate and necessary;
iii.
the planning conditions set out in the
Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
iv.
delegated authority to officers, in
consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the
following additional conditions:
a.
requiring a service agreement to
control heavy commercial vehicle delivery times;
b. the courtyard should remain publicly accessible; and
c. planters should remain on the
outside of the terrace area in perpetuity;
v.
an informative
included on the planning permission:
a.
requesting maximum levels of carbon reduction as per option 2 in the
Officer’s report (paragraph 8.93).