Issue - meetings

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.