Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
13 21/01625/FUL - Church Hall 6A Chapel Street (Snap Nursery, Chesterton) PDF 236 KB
Minutes:
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.