Issue - meetings

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.

   iii.          The 100 flats were welcome, but  the1,000 employees on site would add to the need for housing in the city when the site should contribute to the provision of housing.

   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.