Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
128 21/03620/FUL - Devonshire Gardens, Devonshire Road PDF 312 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for demolition of existing depot building and redevelopment of
site to provide two new buildings comprising Class E (g)(i) / E (g) (ii)
floorspace with associated plant and cycle parking, three new residential
buildings comprising 100 units with associated plant and cycle parking, one new
building comprising flexible commercial space (Class E) to include a creche
with associated cycle parking, flexible community space (Class F.1/F.2), hard
and soft landscaping and associated access.
The Principal
Planner updated his report by referring to updated wording and the recommendation
details on the amendment sheet. Specifically:
i.
Paragraph 8.55: To be reworded as follows: “In
summary the scale and massing of the proposed development would detract from
the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposals would also
result in moderate less than substantial harm to the setting of the grade
II* listed Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs spire and Mill Road
Conservation Area. In making this assessment officers have given special regard
to desirability of preserving and enhancing the settings of listed buildings
and conservation areas in terms of requirements of sections 66 and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990)”.
ii.
Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Reason
for refusal 1 to be reworded as follows: “The proposed development by reason of
its scale, massing and articulation of building facades would result in
an unduly imposing form of development, in a location which would not justify
buildings of such scale. As such the proposals Page 2 would dominate views from
surrounding elevated positions and detract from the character and appearance of
the surrounding area. The proposals would also result in less than substantial
harm to the setting of the adjacent Mill Road Conservation Area and the
setting of the Grade II* listed Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs
spire, which would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposals.
The proposals would therefore conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2018)
policies 55, 56, 57, 60 and 61, and paragraph 202 of the National Planning
Policy Framework”.
Mr Higgins (Applicant) and the Founder of Indie Cambridge addressed the
Committee in support of the application.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from the Chair of South Petersfield Residents Association:
i.
Usable public open space
a.
Was 0.24 hectares sufficient for
use by 250 on-site residents, up to 1,000 on-site workers, and visitors to
residents, businesses, crèche and other community amenities?
i. Only
the central green wedge counted as “usable green space”.
ii. Local
Plan required 0.625 hectares for informal open space and children’s play area
before considering the needs of on-site workers and visitors.
ii.
Cycle parking
a.
Was 157 cycle spaces sufficient
for circa 250 residents?
i. The
Local Plan policy on cycle parking did not cover car-free developments.
Residents suggested one cycle parking space per resident, not per bedroom, as
the appropriate standard here.
b.
Is there sufficient provision for
cargo, trailer and other cycles?
i. Residents
without a car were much more likely to own these.
c.
Are the residents’ cycle parks
sufficiently secure and surveilled?
i. Cycle
theft was a major problem in Cambridge.
ii. The
loss of their cycle would be a major inconvenience for people who do not have a
car as a backup.
iii.
Was the provision for deliveries
adequate?
a.
Living car-free meant relying more
on delivery services – groceries, fast food, Amazon, etc.
b.
Offices would also receive regular
deliveries.
c.
Delivery drivers parked as close
to the destination as they can.
d.
The two shared-space ‘squares’ in
the development would be busy, and potentially conflicted; with delivery
vehicles, as well as people walking and cycling on and off the site.
iv.
Parking provision
a.
Was one Blue Badge and three
visitor parking spaces sufficient?
i. Competition
for those visitor spaces would be intense.
ii. Off-site
parking options were not suitable for longer-stay visitors (e.g. overnight or a
weekend): maximum stay at Gwydir St car park is
two hours; on-street Pay & Display, four hours.
b.
Was one club car sufficient for
100 dwellings?
i. Marmalade
Lane (not car-free) has two club cars for 42 dwellings.
ii. S106
provision of Electric Vehicle club car spaces for use by the wider community?
v.
Local Plan context
a.
Was this a case of
overdevelopment?
i. 100
dwellings for circa 250 residents. 45 dwellings had previously been proposed.
ii. 12,313
sq.m. of commercial space for circa 1,000 workers.
iii. Residents,
businesses, crèche and community amenities would attract a significant number
of visitors and deliveries
b.
If so, it was the employment space
that should be scaled back, there was a shortage of housing, not jobs.
vi.
Was aware the Applicant proposed
off-site parking but 3 extra spaces were insufficient.
Councillor Robertson
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application to set out his
view on expanded reasons for refusal:
(As per Officer’s
report)
i.
The proposed development by reason of its scale and
massing would result in an unduly imposing form of development, in a location
which would not justify buildings of such scale. As such the proposals would
dominate views from surrounding elevated positions and detract from the
character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposals would also
result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjacent Mill Road
Conservation area and the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of Our Lady
and the English Martyrs spire. The proposals would therefore conflict with
Cambridge Local Plan (2018) policies 55, 56, 57, 60 and 61, and paragraph 202
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
ii.
The landscape design of spaces within the
development, with high levels of soft landscaping, broad spreading trees and
mounds, would not be appropriate for the scale of the space, and the intensity
of its proposed use. As such the proposed landscaping fails to relate to the
character and intended function of the space, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan
(2018) policy 59.
(Additional
reasons for refusal)
iii.
The quality of some of the proposed
residential units is unduly poor, due to number of single aspect units, long
double loaded corridors with no natural light or ventilation, excessive numbers
of units per core / floor, low levels of sunlight to some units. As such they
would provide a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers. (Wording from
Summary on page 8.)
iv.
Insufficient usable green space has been allowed
for residents and none for the needs of workers and visitors to the site.
v.
Insufficient cycle parking has been provided for
the 250 residence and 1000 workers which can be expected on the site.
vi.
A full explanation is missing of how cycle parking
will be maintained securely and with surveillance.
vii.
Inadequate provision for deliveries has been
provided both for residents and even more so for offices
viii.
No explanation has been provided for the management
of the 3 parking spaces for visitors, nor how these spaces can be said to be
adequate when there is only short term car parking with payment required
anywhere near the site.
ix.
Inadequate provision of club car parking spaces
which can be expected to be in heavier demand than usual because this would be
a largely car free site.
x.
Overprovision of offices and under provision of
housing on this site which is designated just for housing.
xi.
Full details are missing with regard to the likely
rent and service charges to residents and the genuineness of their
affordability. Given the Build to Rent nature of this housing and the proposal
not to seek local government adoption of any part of the site, this information
should be provided at application stage and not left for subsequent discussion.
xii.
Too many trees would be required to be felled from
the belt of trees along Devonshire Road.
Councillor
Robertson supplementary points:
i.
The application had points of merit and demerit.
ii.
It was an overdevelopment of the site.
iv.
Expresses concern about:
a.
Inadequate green space.
b.
Excessive height of buildings.
c.
Being car free was good, but there needed to be
adequate cycle parking, delivery bays and club car spaces.
v.
The developer should offer more than the minimum
level of affordable housing.
vi.
Requested the amount of office space be reduced,
but not the amount of housing.
vii.
Asked the Applicant to submit a revised scheme that
did not overdevelop the site.
The Committee:
Unanimously
resolved to refuse the application for planning permission in
accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
officer report and amendment sheet.