Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
108 20/02172/FUL - 11 Queen Ediths Way PDF 386 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the erection of new buildings to
provide 40 serviced apartments (sui generis) together with hard and soft
landscaping, basement car parking spaces and associated infrastructure and
works.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Queen Ediths Way:
i.
Concern about loss of community
asset by replacing a care home with a hotel.
ii.
22
people would lose a care home facility.
iii.
Care
homes were covered by Local Plan Policy 47. The application did not satisfy the
policy requirements to justify the change of use to change from a care home to
a hotel.
iv.
Took
issue with the scale and mass details of buildings set out in plans submitted
by the Applicant, did not think they were accurate i.e. showed true extent.
v.
Queried if hotel would be viable
in future.
vi.
Pressure on local parking.
vii.
Biodiversity concerns.
viii.
Impact of refuse/waste collection
(arrangements) on local residents and cycle lane.
Mr Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor S. Davies (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Requested the application be
rejected.
ii.
Local Plan Policies:
a.
Councillors
needed to consider Local Plan Policies 17 and 77.
b.
Policy
77 stated that high quality accommodation would be supported “at Cambridge
Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s hospital)”. In para 8.5 of the
Officer report the Officer suggested
that 11 QEW is close enough to the Campus to qualify for approval under Policy
77.
c.
Policy
17 stated campus accommodation needs
should be met on-site.
d. Suggested
that Policy 17 was a more important consideration than Policy 77 in this case.
e. The
campus should not negatively impact nearby residents.
iii.
Impact of this development on the
character of area:
a.
the
character of the area was predominantly residential with early-mid 20th century
2.5 storey detached houses;
b.
the
application would be incompatible with this residential character, in terms of
both scale and usage type; and
c.
there
was no precedent for this type of accommodation in the area.
iv.
Queen
Edith Way was used by cyclists/commuters accessing local employment sites
(including the Biomedical Campus) and education sites (including Netherhall
School, Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge Academy for Science and Technology
and Trumpington Community College). Queried why the highways authority did not
comment on this application when they commented on the nearby Fendon Road
‘Dutch’ style roundabout.
v.
Local
takeaway facilities/infrastructure could not support the needs of residents in
the proposed apartments where the apartments are only 25 sq. m, i.e. only 2/3rd
the size of the minimum space standard specified in Policy 50 and where there
are no communal facilities on site.
vi.
The lack of policies to prohibit
development on-site was a low bar to overcome to approve development on this
site. It did not mean that this was the right development in the right
location.
Councillor Baigent proposed and Councillor Dryden seconded
a motion deferring the decision until further information could be obtained.
This proposal/motion was carried (by 5 votes to 0).
Councillor Porrer did not vote or participate in the
debate on this application.
The Committee:
Application deferred to a future Planning
Committee to allow Officer time to present further information they considered
material to the application.