Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for refurbishment, reconfiguration and extension of the existing chapel building to create an improved day nursery facility with external play area and 13 residential apartments (following part demolition), together with associated landscaping and infrastructure.

 

The Senior Planner updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet which can be viewed at the link below:

 

Choose agenda document pack - Planning 14 January 2022 - Cambridge Council

 

The applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Chapel Street.

      i.         Agreed with the Planning officer’s findings that the development was far too large for the site.

    ii.         Expressed concerns for any future residents of any flats built, and for the other area residents/users.

   iii.         The road through Chapel Street is in a poor repair and is narrow. It is used as cut through for cyclists and pedestrians to Arbury/Kings Hedges. Residents rarely parked on the road but on weekdays it was always full, from those using the nursey, the dentist and public house.

  iv.         Adding new residents with their parking, movement and deliveries would cause more blocks, delays, and damage. That did not even include the 1-2 years of building work.

    v.         Safety and access issues: Everything such as bins, bikes, furniture would have to go through a small side door.

  vi.         The bins for 13 flats will take up most of the pavement. The council stated there was not enough bike parking, let alone car parking.

 vii.         The noise assessment took place in lockdown and was inadequate. The assessment of the impact on 2-4 Chapel street referenced the back of the houses, not the front. There was the noise of the pub which would impact the new flats; and the rooftop nursery impacting them and other residents.

viii.         All local comments (Chapel Street, Chesterton Towers, Church Street, the High Street, the pub) are objections. This emphasised the plans were not appropriate for the local area / residents. Those in support were from places like Scotland.

  ix.         Not against development, but this scale was unreasonable. Residents do not support the application.

    x.         Stated it was clear from the scale of development this was about profit and not community. This was not the right plan for Chesterton or Chapel Street.

 

Councillor Ashton addressed the Committee about the application:

                                              i.     Supported the application as he believed the development to be feasible, deliverable and would be an advantage to the community.

                                             ii.     Acknowledged there were objections to the application but hoped these issues could be resolved with minor amendments.

                                           iii.     The application was supported by all the three Cambridge City Council Ward Councillors, the County Council Ward Councillor and Daniel Zeichner MP.

                                           iv.     The theatre company Chickenshed supported the application who hoped to operate in Cambridge from the new community space of the development bringing affordable inclusive drama opportunities to the area.

                                            v.     Stated that Cambridge was the most unequal City in the county with a significant proportion of people experiencing poverty. The current building had reached out to those who required additional help to achieve the best possible start in life over the last twenty-two years.

                                           vi.     The building was unfit for purpose and this application meet climate change policies and standard. 

                                         vii.     The applicant had worked with experts at the top of their profession. The architect, Richard Owers, director of NRAP Architects, a former chairman of the Cambridge Associations Architects. Gawn Associates, civil and structural engineers. Joanna Burton, Director of JV Heritage Consulting. All were professionals who understand policy, planning law, had provided specialist expert advice and had looked at the history of the site starting from the year 1842. 

                                        viii.     Advice had also been taken from fire, acoustic, energy and sustainability, planning and ecology consultants. 

                                           ix.     Advised that the City Council Planning Officers had not visited the site and had no engagement with the applicant despite being contacted by the applicant.

                                            x.     Highlighted the amendment that had been published the day before the planning meeting as no viability study had been undertaken by the Council, but the day of the meeting had been found. The applicant had paid for and had submitted their study.

                                           xi.     The application had suffered from mistakes in the administration process and queried how the Planning Inspector would view those mistakes through the appeal process if the application were rejected.

                                         xii.     Recommended the Committee approved the application with conditions.

 

Committee Manager’s note: The committee report references the viability assessment and sets out the reasons why the Council hadn’t assessed the viability at that time.

 

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer advised he had not seen the e-mail recently sent from Camcycle regarding the cycle parking being incorrect which had been referenced in debate.

 

The Delivery Manager (Development Management) recommended the application was deferred for Officers to consider the comments from CamCycle and the viability issues that had been raised.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Councillor Porrer to defer the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to defer the application.