Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: Applications postponed from 11 June 2019 Planning Committee meeting (18/1859/FUL, 18/1520/FUL, 18/1887/FUL) to be considered at beginning of Minor application session (2pm)
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor McQueen (Councillor Thornburrow
as alternate) and Page-Croft. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
18/1002/FUL - 211-213 Newmarket Road and 2 Godesdone Road PDF 340 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of existing buildings
at 211-213 Newmarket Road and the construction of a hotel (C1 use), with change
of use and conversion of 2 Godesdone Road to C1 use,
and provision of associated infrastructure.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i. Following
a survey undertaken in March 2019 only 3 out of 325 respondents regarded the
development as a good idea
ii. There
were numerous shortcomings within the officer’s report that omitted facts and
was therefore misleading.
iii. The
proposed development represented the third large budget hotel to the existing
cluster that were within 100m of one another.
iv. Planning
permission for the other 2 hotels was granted before the new local plan was
adopted which contained location and quality criteria which were grounds for
refusal of planning permission.
v. The
development would distort the local area with a high density of budget hotel
rooms when housing should be a priority.
vi. Attention
to the local plan and national guidance regarding sustainability was deficient.
The cumulative impact of the development was a relevant consideration that was
absent from the officer’s report. Mr Garth Hanlon, (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support
of the application. A written statement prepared by Councillor Nicky Massey, (Abbey Ward
Councillor) was circulated to the Committee. Councillor Richard Johnson, (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee and raised the following issues: i.
The new hotel and change of use was not justified
in the proposed location. ii.
The application was based on two assertions.
Firstly, that demand for hotel rooms was higher than anticipated in 2012 when
detailed hotel demand modelling was undertaken (Hotel Futures report) which
underpinned the local plan and secondly that the proposed hotel was a new category
of ‘super budget’ hotel that was not
considered in 2012 and therefore represented new demand. iii.
The Hotel Futures report modelled three scenarios;
high, medium and low growth and then calculated the number of rooms required to
meet the demand for each scenario. The
high growth scenario applied higher demand rates than those the applicant had
used within the planning application to claim new need. iv. The Hotel Futures
report forecast leisure growth at 4.5%p.a however, the applicant had forecast only
3.8%p.a and that business growth would be 2% p.a
compared to the applicant’s forecast of 1.7%p.a. v.
The New Premier Inn at the Grafton Centre would
mean that provision of hotel rooms would far exceed the projected demand. vi. The forecasts
contained within the Hotel Future’s report that underpinned the Local Plan
should be adhered to. vii. Recent analysis
had demonstrated a weakening of the market and an excess of supply of rooms. viii. Drew attention to
the competition in the market from Airbnb that was not considered within the
officer’s report or by the applicant. ix.
Questioned the rationale that the hotel represented
a distinct new hotel category (Super-budget).
x.
The impact upon the local area was
unjustified. Councillor Haf Davies, (Abbey Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee and raised the following issues: i.
The environmental impacts would be unacceptable
should planning permission be granted. ii.
The number of bedrooms on a fairly small site
represented very high intensity use which could only be achieved by excavating
a basement level and no provision for amenity space. iii.
Pre-application advice contained concerns of the
case officer regarding over development stating that the intensity of the
proposed use would not be appropriate for the site. iv.
Proposed drainage for the development was not
sustainable as it required constant pumping and questioned whether planned
mitigation would be effective. v.
There would be a severe adverse impact on air
quality resulting from approximately 76 arrivals and 76 departures daily from
the hotel based on estimated occupancy rates.
vi.
The application did not support objective 3 of the
Council’s Climate Change Strategy to reduce emissions from transport by
promoting sustainable transport, reducing car travel congestion, and encouraging
behaviour change. The proposed site was
located in an air quality management area it was also an air pollution
hotspot. vii.
Questioned the accuracy of the traffic movement
forecasts undertaken by the applicant. viii. A 90 room hotel
would generate significant noise and disturbance for local residents from taxis
dropping off and collecting guests. ix.
The lack of amenity within the hotel would result
in guests congregating in the street and causing disturbance. Councillor Whitehead (Abbey Division Councillor for Cambridgeshire
County Council) submitted a written statement to the Committee that expressed
the following issues. i.
The applicant’s low estimates of the number of
vehicle movements appeared unrealistic and would add to congestion and cause
severe harm. ii.
The application would impact upon road safety as it
presented an increased risk of vehicle collision. iii.
The Newmarket Road/Coldhams
Lane junction was exceptionally dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and the
application would increase risk. iv.Overnight parking
stress in the area surrounding the proposed hotel that would be exacerbated by
the proposed development. During the course of
discussion Members raised a number of concerns regarding the application
including, overdevelopment, transport and loss of amenity. The Chairman established
that the application was likely to be refused on being put to the vote and with
the agreement of the Committee proposed that Members were minded to refuse
planning permission for the following reasons: i. The proposed development would conflict with policy 77
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 due to location of site partly in a
residential road. There was also insufficient evidence submitted that
demonstrated the need for accommodation over and above that identified in the
Hotel Futures report 2012 on which the policy was framed. On being put to the vote the reason for
refusal was carried 6 votes in favour and 1
abstention. ii. Insufficient information had been submitted with the
application that demonstrated the development would not have an unacceptable
transport impact. The proposal was
therefore contrary to policy 81 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018, notably
paragraph 9.22 which aimed to achieve a zero increase or reduction in car traffic
in locations including Newmarket Road. On being put to the vote the reason for
refusal was carried unanimously. iii. Due to absence of amenities in the proposed hotel and
the absence of adequate pick up and drop arrangements on site, the development
would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of
adjacent residential properties through increased comings and goings and
increased numbers of visitors congregating on Godesdone
Road and increased vehicle (notably taxi)in the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
policy 35 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
On being put to the vote the reason for refusal was carried 6 votes in favour and 1 against. Following officer advice the Committee unanimously resolved to move a ‘minded to’ resolution to refuse planning permission contrary to the officer recommendation for the reasons set out above. |
|||||||
19/0175/FUL - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 279 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of an
apartment building (45 affordable dwellings), the erection of a mixed use
building with community centre and ancillary office and meeting rooms on the
ground floor with 4 affordable dwellings above. It also sought the change of
use of the Gate House to a mixed use (commercial ground floor (A1/A2/A3/B1/D1
in the alternative) and 1 dwelling on first floor), together with associated
external works including provision of open space (including play area), cycle
parking, landscaping and demolition of 'link building' attached to Old Library (Grade
II listed). The presenting
officer drew attention to the proposed amendments to the application set out
within the amendment sheet circulated in advance of the meeting. The Chairman
explained that he would exercise his discretion and consider agenda items 5 and
6 together however, would be voted on separately. Public speakers would therefore have 6
minutes in which to address the Committee. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from three local residents. Resident (1) raised the following issues in her representation: i.
The height of building B01 was out
of proportion with the area and contrary to planning guidance contained within
the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
ii.
The development was substantial
and the plan for the junction with Mill Road was inadequate and traffic signals
were needed. iii.
Commercial unit B11 was
unnecessary as there were plenty of retail units on Mill Road. In particular there should be no alcohol
license associated with the commercial unit. iv.
There was a conflict of interest
regarding Councillors membership of the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP).
Resident (2) raised the
following issues in his representation: i.
There was a failure by the Council
to apply planning policies including policy 24 and figure 3.10 which covered
improvements to Mill Road and access to the development. There was also inadequate consideration of
cycle and pedestrian safety. ii.
The Council had not adequately
considered the heritage asset library under the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). The library was now closed,
unsafe and required substantial renovation. Resident (3) raised the
following issues in her representation: i.
She had been engaged since April
2014 organising community groups and although community provision had increased
during the application there was a huge demand for provision. ii.
Capacity of the hall had decreased
from the original 150 seat hall that was originally proposed. iii.
The proposed location of the
electricity sub-station was inappropriate and needed to be sited
elsewhere. iv.
There was a lack of adequate
kitchen facilities in the community provision to be able to hold events such as
cookery workshops. v.
The community provision required
reconfiguration and therefore the application should be deferred. David Digby and Fiona Bryant (Applicant) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. Councillor Richard Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor), Executive Councillor
for Housing and Board Member of the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) addressed
the Committee about the application: i.
The development was of strategic
importance as there were approximately 2,500 families on the housing register,
the provision of new Council tenancy homes was essential. ii. The development assisted the Council’s main
priority of tackling the city’s housing crisis. iii. The
devolution deal had energised the process and enable
the Council to construct over 500 new council homes. iv. In
order to meet the commitment the Council had agreed to release its Mill Road
depot site. v. There
was a commitment that half of the units provided would be for council
rent. vi. The
housing manager was closely involved in design workshops and the homes meet the
M42 accessibility standard and also meet high sustainability standards with low
carbon emissions and gains in terms of biodiversity. vii. The
community centre was designed to meet BREEAM certificate for excellence. With the unanimous agreement of the Committee it was proposed that provision
of a scheme for boundary treatments prior to the commencement of works above
ground be secured by condition. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
19/0176/LBC - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 246 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
listed building consent. The application sought permission for the
demolition of a ‘link building’ attached to the Old Library (Grade II listed). The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers
Following the conclusion of the item the Chairman adjourned the meeting
for lunch at 13.57. |
|||||||
18/1990/FUL - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 115 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
erection of a single storey building to house an electricity substation, and
associated screening. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
There was a need to review the
provision of community facilities across the site we would be concerned that if
approved the application would prevent a review taking place. ii.
There was no curtilage available
for bins or external servicing for the library and therefore raised questions
of how any refurbishment of the library would impact upon the demands for
Gatehouse Court. iii.
The planning application was
premature as the County Council were imminently bringing forward proposals for
the library. David Digby and Fiona Bryant (Applicants) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. With the unanimous agreement of the Committee it was proposed that
provision of a scheme for boundary treatments prior to the commencement of
works above ground be secured by condition.
The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission
in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
18/1947/S73 - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 213 KB Minutes: The Committee received a S73 application. The application sought approval for a S73
application to vary condition 2 of planning permission 17/2245/FUL (182
dwellings, including 50% affordable, 51sqm of Class B1 (Business) or D1
(Non-Residential Institutions) – in the alternative, basement car park (101
spaces), surface water pumping station, open space (including play area),
alterations to junction with Mill Road and associated works) to change accessibility
levels; introduce 4 additional units, including 1 to replace pumping station;
revisions to heights and design of dwellings on Headly
Street; and redistribution of 50% affordable housing provision within Phase I
to 50% affordable housing provision across both Phases I and II (to be secured
through S106). The Chairman explained that he would
exercise his discretion and consider agenda items 8 and 9 together however,
would be voted on separately. Public
speakers would therefore have 6 minutes in which to address the Committee. The presenting
officer drew attention to the proposed amendments to the application set out
within the amendment sheet circulated in advance of the meeting. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i. In
phase 1 building B09 was permitted to have 3 floors on the basis that it was a
statement building and it would be different from surrounding buildings. The proposal for alterations to building
height loses the statement building.
ii. The
proposed changes were contrary to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and
questioned why Councillors would be prepared to diverge from agreed development
standards.
iii. Regarding
changes to the distribution of affordable housing sought assurance that there
would not be ghettoising of affordable housing and that all residents would be
able to access all external space and amenity. Mill Road was a very mixed
environment and it was important to maintain that. David Digby and Fiona Bryant (Applicants) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
19/0546/S106A - Mill Road Depot, Mill Road PDF 118 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for a deed of variation to S106 to substitute the existing requirement to provide 50% affordable housing within Phase I with a requirement to provide 50% affordable housing across both Phases I and II and to ensure that the informal open space is provided and maintained. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out
in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
19/0166/S106A - Land at 315-349 Mill Road PDF 115 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application under
S106A for the modification of Planning Obligations relating to 14/1496/FUL
(Student housing development consisting of 270 rooms, communal areas, bicycle
parking, refuse store, plant room, office, new substation, infrastructure and
access) pursuant to Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(Restrictions on occupation by students) to allow for summer use by students
aged 18+ attending other institutions in the City of Cambridge. Mr Mike Ibbot (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Baigent informed the Committee that he had been involved in
the campaign against the accommodation being built originally and therefore
would not take part in the debate of the item and withdraw from the meeting, The Committee: Resolved (5 votes in favour 1 against) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
18/1876/FUL - Hobson House, 42-44 St Andrews Street PDF 200 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the change of use and refurbishment of the existing Grade
II listed office building (use Class B1(a) Offices to a 57 bed boutique hotel
(Use Class C1) and cafe/tea room (use Class A3), to include replacement of a
glazed screen on the St Andrew's street facade, the upgrading of the thermal
character of the glazed roof over the drill hall to create a central atrium, the
removal of the existing northern wing to create two floors above, a second
floor extension to the existing southern wing; together with partial demolition
and replacement new-building at the rear and associated works. The Chairman
explained that he would exercise his discretion and consider agenda items 11
and 12 together however, would be voted on separately. Public speakers would therefore have 6
minutes in which to address the Committee. The presenting
officer drew attention to the proposed amendments to the application set out
within the amendment sheet circulated in advance of the meeting. Mr Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. A statement was
read out on behalf of Councillor John Hipkin (Castle Ward Councillor) in
support of the application which covered the following main areas: i.
The proposed conversion was a fine example of how a
listed building could be adapted for a different purpose without compromising
its unique features. ii.
The transport impact of the proposed development
would be minimal as the hotel was a short taxi journey from the rail station
and was located on major bus routes. iii. There was a
distinct need for high quality hotel accommodation in the city centre. iv. The hotel would
not serve regular restaurant food and would therefore support nearby cafés and
restaurants. v. The application
would assist the Council in its aims to achieve more sustainable tourism for
the city. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
18/1877/LBC - Hobson House, 42-44 St Andrews Street PDF 113 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the change of use and refurbishment of the existing Grade
II listed office building (use Class B1(a) Offices to a 57 bed boutique hotel
(Use Class C1) and cafe/tea room (use Class A3), to include the replacement of
a glazed screen on the St Andrew's street facade, the upgrading the thermal
character of the glazed roof over the drill hall to create a central atrium,
the removal of the existing northern wing to create two floors above, a second
floor extension to the existing southern wing; together with partial demolition
and replacement new-building at the rear and associated works. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
18/2025/FUL - Unit 10 Cambridge Retail Park, Newmarket Road PDF 258 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a 2
storey unit for D2 use (gym) with the reduction of the Homebase garden centre
and existing service yard and alterations to service yard access. The
application also sought the approval for the provision of a cycle store and an
ancillary plant compound. Mr Simon Neate (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application.
The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
17/2267/FUL - Land r/o 115, 117 and 119 Shelford Road PDF 358 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of 9, 2-bedroom flats
and associated works. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The objection was from 7
neighbours concerning the impact of the proposed development on Austin
Drive. ii.
Construction traffic will have to
travel along Austin drive iii.
There would be damage to roads and
surfaces arising from the construction and questioned who would remedy any
damage caused. iv.
Questioned the impact on drainage
as not all drains were adopted. v.
The ad hoc parking of construction
vehicles and construction personnel would cause issues for residents and
questioned how it would be prevented and who would be responsible for
enforcement. vi.
The constant construction vehicle
movements would be potentially dangerous for children playing in the area. Mr Peter North (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the
conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
18/1952/FUL - 6 Wilberforce Road PDF 102 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: It was resolved unanimously to defer this item to the next meeting of the Planning Committee. |