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

Ms Robertson (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.          Following the last planning meeting, the owner had reached out to the local community to tell us that she was responding to our concerns with a new plan for fewer, smaller flats. We were cautiously optimistic. Had now been advised by the Council that no new plans have been submitted.

     ii.          Therefore, concerns remain unchanged from the last meeting:

a.    It was over development of the site

b.    It was not suitable for a narrow, already well used road, with the parking, movements, bins, cycles, deliveries etc for the nursery and the flats all through the small frontage onto Chapel Street. Nursery users already regularly park dangerously and illegally. More residents would make this much worse.

c.    The noise issues remain from the rooftop nursery for all local residents. We know it is not a playground but it is open air for multiple use. The noise assessment was done inaccurately and in lockdown thus was not a fair assessment. Many current residents are at home during the day, either due to work or shifts.

d.    All local comments (those in Chesterton) are against (or neutral).

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of High Street:

      i.          Re-iterated points made by first Objector.

     ii.          The application was too large for the site.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from CamCycle:

      i.          The Applicants claimed there were 16 cycle parking spaces for the residences. However, the room provided for cycle parking can only accommodate 14 spaces according to the Local Plan specifications. As such, this renders several spaces wholly unusable.

     ii.          There are only four cycle parking spaces for the nursery, a rather low number, especially for Cambridge.

   iii.          Access to both cycle parking rooms required passage through multiple sets of doors, which is particularly difficult for people using cargo cycles or towing trailers to transport children, as many would do.

   iv.          The Applicants have placed bins behind those nursery cycle parking spaces. This means that the bins will be inaccessible during most times that any cycles are parked here, an environmental health hazard.

    v.          Asked that the Officer recommendation for refusal be upheld and that one of the reasons for refusal should be the failure to comply with Local Plan Policy 82, due to non-compliant cycle parking design and inadequate quantity.

Councillor Ashton (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          In response to comments on social media: Councillors Bird and McQueen were in favour of the development on site in principle, assuming appropriate planning conditions were met.

     ii.          The Committee suggested conditions which would make the application more acceptable when they considered it 14 January 2022. The Applicant responded to these and hoped details could be considered today but the Planning Officer advised they could not be.

   iii.          The Applicant has listened to concerns raised by objectors and Councillors .

   iv.          The City has a history of redeveloping sites.

    v.          The building was not fit for purpose at present. The Applicant wanted to refurbish it so it can be fit for purpose in future.

   vi.          Queried if a Heritage Officer had visited the site to investigate access concerns listed in the Officer’s report.

 vii.          Suggested the building was redeveloped as proposed in the application today in case another development was proposed in future that tried to fit more buildings onto the site.

The Committee:

Resolved (2 votes to 2 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report.