Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: via Microsoft Teams
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Application and Petition Details (20/03429/FUL / 104 - 112 Hills Rd Cambridge) Application No:
20/03429/FUL Site Address: 104 - 112 Hills Road Cambridge
Cambridgeshire Description: 1) The demolition of Betjeman House,
Broadcasting House, Ortona House, Francis House, and
the rear multi-storey carpark to Francis House, together with existing refuse
and cycle stores; to allow for construction of two new commercial buildings of
five and seven storeys respectively, providing flexible B1(a), B1(b), A1, A2,
A3 uses on the ground floor and Class B1(a) and B1(b) on the upper floors. 2) The construction of basement with
mezzanine level to provide for building services, cycle parking and car parking
for the proposed commercial buildings, cycle and car parking spaces for Botanic
House and services for Flying Pig Public House. 3) The refurbishment of the Flying Pig
Public House at 106 Hills Road, including demolition of part single/part two
storey outrigger and single storey store, alterations to elevations,
construction of extension to enable level access and layout pub garden. 4) Creation of new public realm and
landscaping, incorporating segregated vehicular and cycle access from Hills
Road, a new access to service areas and substations, and taxi drop off for both
the development proposed and existing Botanic House. Applicant: Not available Agent: Jonathan
Bainbridge, Bidwells Address: 25 Old Burlington Street London W1S 3AN Lead
Petitioner: Cambridge City resident Case
Officer: Phil Mcintosh Text of Petition: This is a petition to request Cambridge City Council hold a
Development Control Forum in respect of planning application 20/03429/FUL Site address: 104 – 112 Hills Rd Cambridge on the grounds that: [according to ‘Probity in Planning for councillors and officers’, published by the Local Government Association and The Planning Advisory Service, it ought to be advertised as a ‘Departure’ application, because:] The application is not in accordance with the following Local Plan Policies: Local Plan Policy 14 - Areas of Major Change, states; ‘development shall only be permitted: where the development is based on clearly articulated and justified objectives and approach through the provision of a site-wide masterplan’. and: ’3.28 Substantial development will not be permitted in advance of the preparation and approval of a site-wide masterplan, strategies and/or other over-arching documents as required by the scale and nature of development’. Masterplanning has not been carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012); Policy 21 states: ‘Station Area West 2 will be subject to masterplanning and detailed transport assessment before any new planning applications come forward.’ Masterplanning has not been carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012); Policy 55 - Responding to context; The proposal ignores the prevailing character of the area in terms of both scale, mass and architectural detail; Policy 58 - Altering and extending existing buildings; The proposed alterations to the Flying Pig do not respect the character of the existing building, and will seriously undermine the viability of the pub as a business; Policy 61 - Conservation and enhancement of Cambridge's historic environment; The Flying Pig is completely dominated by this over-bearing ... view the full agenda text for item 20/30/DCF Minutes: 1. The
demolition of Betjeman House, Broadcasting House, Ortona
House, Francis House, and the rear multi-storey carpark to Francis House,
together with existing refuse and cycle stores; to allow for construction of
two new commercial buildings of five and seven storeys respectively, providing
flexible B1(a), B1(b), A1, A2, A3 uses on the ground floor and Class B1(a) and
B1(b) on the upper floors. 2. The
construction of basement with mezzanine level to provide for building services,
cycle parking and car parking for the proposed commercial buildings, cycle and
car parking spaces for Botanic House and services for Flying Pig Public House. 3. The
refurbishment of the Flying Pig Public House at 106 Hills Road, including
demolition of part single/part two storey outrigger and single storey store,
alterations to elevations, construction of extension to enable level access and
layout pub garden. 4. Creation of new public realm and landscaping, incorporating segregated vehicular and cycle access ii from Hills Road, a new access to service areas and substations, and taxi drop off for both the development proposed and existing Botanic House. Applicant:
Pace Investments (Johnny Vincent) Agent:
Jonathan Bainbridge, Bidwells Address: 25 Old
Burlington Street London W1S 3AN Lead Petitioner: Cambridge City resident Case Officer: Phil Mcintosh The grounds for
asking for a Forum on this application were as follows: Text of Petition:
This is a petition to request Cambridge City Council hold a Development Control
Forum in respect of planning application 20/03429/FUL Site address: 104 – 112
Hills Rd Cambridge on the grounds that: [according to ‘Probity in Planning for
Councillors and Officers’, published by the Local Government Association and
The Planning Advisory Service, it ought to be advertised as a ‘Departure’
application, because:] The application is
not in accordance with the following Local Plan (LP) Policies: Local Plan Policy 14
- Areas of Major Change, states; ‘development shall only be permitted: where
the development is based on clearly articulated and justified objectives and
approach through the provision of a site-wide masterplan’. and: ’3.28
Substantial development will not be permitted in advance of the preparation and
approval of a site-wide masterplan, strategies and/or other overarching
documents as required by the scale and nature of development’. Masterplanning has not been carried out in accordance with
the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012); Policy 21 states: ‘Station Area West 2 will be
subject to masterplanning and detailed transport
assessment before any new planning applications come forward.’ Masterplanning has not been carried out in accordance with
the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012); Policy 55 -
Responding to context; The proposal ignores the prevailing character of the
area in terms of both scale, mass and architectural iii detail;
Policy 58 - Altering
and extending existing buildings; The proposed alterations to the Flying Pig do
not respect the character of the existing building, and will seriously
undermine the viability of the pub as a business; Policy 61 -
Conservation and enhancement of Cambridge's historic environment; The Flying
Pig is completely dominated by this overbearing proposal and its significance
lost by the poor juxtaposition of the new buildings; The University Botanic
Garden is overlooked and overshadowed, negatively impacting the skyline as
viewed from within the Garden, and the sense of privacy and intimacy currently
enjoyed from within the garden. Policy 62 - Local
Heritage Assets; The history of this site not adequately understood: There is
considerable new information regarding the history of both the Public House and
the wider site, and it’s relevance to the development of the city physically,
politically, historically and economically, that has yet to be disseminated. Policy 76 -
Protection of Public Houses; The economic benefits have not, and cannot be
predicted in the current Covid climate, as
acknowledged by the authors of the ‘Economic Benefits Statement’ submitted in
support of this application. No justification for the development has therefore
been provided; It has not been demonstrated that the viability of the pub will
not be adversely affected; The associated development does not preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in which it sits;
The proposals will result in the garden area (both existing and proposed) being
overshadowed during trading hours and thus deprived of sunlight, to the
detriment of the flora and patrons. Sunlight is an important factor in its
attractiveness to customers, particularly during the most lucrative summer
months. and furthermore, we are also concerned: That application 20/03429/FUL
and supporting documents contain a number of potentially inaccurate statements
and premises, on which comments by statutory consultees, and nonstatutory consultees have been made;
That a number of
alternative schemes have been illustrated in the ‘Design and Access Statement’
(Both sets!), but not shown to the local iv community at any public
consultation for comment or discussion prior to submission and validation of
the application; That the cumulative
impacts of some of the other developments that will occur in the vicinity, for
example as the CB1 development progresses, have not been adequately assessed or
quantified in the EIA process; That insufficient
information has been provided regarding the construction methods proposed to
form a view of either the long term danger to the structure of the Flying Pig
Public House caused by the proximity of proposed excavation, piling and
subsequent building works, or of the danger of sudden collapse during
construction works, and that if that were to occur, substantial harm would be
done to the character and appearance of the New Town and Glisson Rd
Conservation Area, which the Local Authority has a duty to preserve or enhance
under the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act; That insufficient
evidence has been provided ‘...on how the basement [of the new offices] will be
protected from groundwater flooding. Further information on the waterproofing
strategy is required at this stage to allow us to assess the groundwater flood
risk to the proposed development in more detail. The applicant must also
demonstrate that the basement will not increase groundwater flood risk in
adjacent areas as a result of groundwater
displacement.’ The Flying Pig beer cellar will be extremely vulnerable to such
floodwater displacement, unless tanked. That either means lining the interior
of the existing cellar… to what thickness? Will barrel access be impeded? Or, will external tanking be required, meaning excavating
around the cellar exterior, at huge risk to the integrity of the existing
(remaining) structure. That the specified
opening hours of the Flying Pig (1500 – 2300hrs Mon – fri,
0700 – 2300hrs Sat-Sun) are hours adopted in response to the Coronavirus
crisis, not the hours kept pre-Covid, and which will
have a serious impact on the viability of the business when this crisis passes.
No opening hours are specified for either offices or other F & B’s; That the condition
proposed to be attached to any permission by Environmental Health, that
amplified music and vocal performance in external areas be prohibited between
the hours of 1900 – 2300 daily, will have a huge impact on the viability of the
pub, as it has proven to v be a popular and essential adaptation to the current
crisis. There’s no such specification
of the same for other F & B’s, and also that the proposal that the first
floor windows be upgraded to provide better acoustic transmission properties,
to protect future occupants from traffic noise will alter the character of the
facade, and thus the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; That the
justifications for denying the Cambridge community its otherwise rightful,
meaningful and accountable say in the work up of proposals for the site (masterplanning) require verification (one of them is
demonstrably untrue and misleading); That the description of the proposal
(06/0552/FUL, ‘the extant permission’, which is relied upon as a justification
for not masterplanning the site, and which lends
credibility to this application, despite it being a completely different
scheme) misleadingly states: ‘including retention of ‘Flying Pig’ Public
House’. Which means the publicity notices advertising that application were
‘recklessly misleading in a material particular’(in
our opinion), which is an offence under Section 65 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990; The above list of
planning concerns is by no means exhaustive. This is not an
outright in-principle objection. Your encouragement
‘to say in the petition what changes might be made to the development to
overcome’ our concerns, is noted, as are the statements on the Petitions and
Development Control Forum Petition page
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/petitions-anddevelopment-control-forum that: ‘You
will be expected to explain what changes you are seeking at the development
control forum itself.’ and that: ‘The aim of the forum is to allow early
discussion of the planning issues raised by petitioners and to explore the
scope for building consensus and resolving concerns. It is an informal meeting
and the forum does not determine the application.’ Specific examples of
changes which might be made to overcome our concerns include, but are not
limited to (and these are the views of us all): 1. That
the bulk of the buildings should be kept below the tree line when viewed from
within the Botanic Garden, which suggests a maximum height of three commercial
storeys at the southern end of the site, rising to perhaps four/five storeys at
the northern end. The proposed heights should therefore be reduced by at least
one / two storeys along its western edge. 2. That
the heights to the Hills Rd frontage should be restricted to four storeys so
that the buildings fit the context. Apart from Botanic House, the prevailing
height for office buildings along the west side of Hills Rd is no more than
four storeys. Botanic House is an exception because it marks an important
junction between Hills Rd and Station Rd. If built as proposed Botanic House
would lose its landmark status. 3. That
a condition be attached to any proposed grant of permission to the effect that:
Any accidental damage that might befall the Flying Pig during construction
works that is not envisaged or permitted by any planning permission be
re-instated in facsimile [as in the case of The Carlton Tavern, Kilburn] before
any further work on site proceeds, or to a schedule agreed by the council
before re-commencement of development on the site, and in any case before
commission of any new buildings. 4. That
Flying Pig trading hours be set at the discretion of the tenants, within the
terms of its license and national licensing regulations. The same to apply to
the other food and beverage units. 5. That
any proposed restrictions on usage of external areas be applied equally to all
food and beverage units on the site. 6. That
development should aim to be car-free, except for essential disabled parking
and access for service (including tenants and musicians) vehicles. 7. That
the office building behind the Flying Pig be pulled back such that the existing
(Flying Pig) buildings need not be developed in any way, and such that the pub
can continue to trade. The developer has said this can be done. The community
has been asking for this loudly and clearly for 15 years. There are schemes in the
Design and Access Statement illustrating such a scenario. The publicly
accessible ground floor of the proposed new buildings will incorporate disabled
access toilets. The statement of economic benefits is, according to its
authors, out of date, so no justification for any work to the Flying Pig has
been offered in this application. Case by the
Applicant / Agent: Johnny Vincent (Managing Director of Pace investments) said
the following points:
i.
The scheme had been principally driven by an
aspiration over sustainability, wellbeing, public realm, the campaign to save
The Flying Pig and to preserve and protect the tranquillity of the Botanic
Garden.
ii.
The scheme provided a campus for people and
would allow innovation, education, provide a space for future learning and
leadership. Simon Allford (AHMM Architects) made the following points:
i.
The Flying Pig was the centrepiece of the
development with the Botanic Garden and two new buildings creating the
masterplan for the site.
ii.
The current site consisted of surface carpark,
minimal planting and two ‘dilapidated’ buildings and a car park.
iii.
The driving mantra of the project was “A
building fit for the future, long term, loose fit, low energy.” iv.
It had been established the site had been a
place of work within the City for over 100 years.
v.
Botanic House, developed by the client, had
informed the developer’s thinking in consultation with statutory and
non-statutory bodies, several of whom had provided positive feedback. vi.
The Flying Pig would be a focus of Hills Road
with a new garden extended along Hills Road, surrounded by but separate from
extensive public realm. Buildings B & C would carefully define the
potential of the site; used for work purposes and would be in the ‘slipstream’
of Botanic House. vii.
Looking south down Hills Road the importance of
Botanic House would clearly be seen and used as marker in the centre of the
development. viii.
The blank rear wall of Botanic House would be
offset by buildings C & D with the church spire remaining as the focus.
Roof gardens would be available for leisure activity such as the use of
exercise tracks. The roof would also
have green and seasonal planting. ix.
The aim of the site was to provide a new public
realm including opening the views of the Botanic Gardens which would bring in
the public to the site.
x.
Inside the buildings the target was to provide
adaptable volume, long life, low energy and low carbon with personality and
character, and natural ventilation hybrid system. xi.
Plans listed as Outstanding/Platinum under
BREEAM2018, WELL and WiredScore ratings, with Water
Consumption and Energy Use both significantly less than average office
buildings. xii.
The development included less car parking,
increased cycle parking, public realm, and green space than the existing levels
or the levels stated in a previously consented application. It would be the first offices in Cambridge to
meet such high standards. xiii.
The following feedback had been received: · Historic
England: “The current scheme in its revised form would significantly enhance
the setting of the pub… we support the applicant’s aim for the scheme to be
BREEAM Outstanding”. · Cambridge
Past, Present & Future: “A significant improvement on the 2007 permission
and likely to be the best scheme proposed for this site.” · Cambridge
Disability Panel:“...among the most impressive
proposals brought before the Panel in recent years... to be applauded, as are
the much needed improvements proposed for the Flying Pig PH and to its
surrounding public realm.” · Camcycle:
“Trying to more than meet LP requirements with regard to cycle parking and
access design and layout” xiv.
The percentage of onsite parking suitable for
electric vehicles would increase each year until fully compliant. xv.
The development included buildings which were
two floors less high than the previous scheme which had consent. xvi.
Through a number of ‘verified’ views, it was
possible to show the increase in visible sky and the decrease in visible
buildings both in winter and summer months, with trees more able to completely
shield the new planned development. xvii.
Agreeable with any appropriate conditions to
protect against accidental damage caused to the Flying Pig during construction;
ensuring it would be able to trade in a similar manner to other venues on the
same site. xviii.
Proposed revisions included matching the
existing trading area, garden area, an increased size of landlord accommodation
and improved storage and kitchen areas. Case by the
Petitioner:
i.
The plans displayed by the applicant showed a
seven-storey building plus setback, but the street view drawings shown during a
previous presentation showed a six-storey building. Sought clarification which was correct.
ii.
Aside from the extant planning permission, a
previous application 05/0487 had been refused in 2005. The façade along Hills Road for that refused
application were identical to the extant permission, with the only difference
being the addition of the phrase ‘including retention of the Flying Pig Public
House’, despite the fact plans submitted did not include the Flying Pig.
iii.
Concerned of the legitimacy of the extant
permission, and that it had been properly consulted upon. iv.
LP policy 21 required the site should have been
master-planned before any application came forward. Had requested clarification from Officers
multiple times during the last year but had not received a response. There were
no records the public had been consulted for this to take place.
v.
There was no masterplan on the Council’s
website. Reasons for this had included
the progress of the station area meaning it was not necessary, despite the fact
this site was not part of the CB1 development, and that the land is in single
ownership. vi.
The redacted application form stated that ‘one
of the owners was resident at shire hall’ and asked which parts of the site
were owned by Cambridgeshire County Council. vii.
The extant permission was also noted as a reason
why a masterplan was not required. However, believed this could not proceed
without Conservation Area Consent, which would be a separate planning
application, and to which the 2018 LP would apply. viii.
Alleged councillors did not have to choose
between this permission or the extant permission, that if this application were
not granted permission, the developer would instead carry out construction as
granted in the extant permission is incorrect.
ix.
Questioned if the existing permission was valid
why construction had not taken place already.
x.
Believed there would be approximately 1700 new
employees working on site and had not seen confirmation how public transport
providers would manage capacity to accommodate this increase, or how road
networks would manage a rise in cycle traffic. xi.
Air quality issues were likely to affect the
periphery of the city more than the application site, away from the location of
air quality monitoring systems. xii.
Current Park & Ride sites were already often
at capacity and this would lead to employees attempting to park in other areas. xiii.
Was aware that other Park & Ride sites had
been proposed but concerned these would not be of suitable capacity for offices
at this site, or others currently planned in the city. xiv.
The impact of COVID on the demand for office space
could not yet be assessed, with workers finding that working from home is a
better option xv.
A significant proportion of the area set aside
for landlord accommodation in the Flying Pig included attic space under the
eaves, which did not believe was justifiable as habitable space. xvi.
Considered that residents of Cambridge did not
want the public house touched, and that the applicant had not put any case
forward which demonstrated a need for the pub to be touched Case Officer’s
Comments: The Officer’s assessment
of the application was currently under review and therefore provided a broad
summary of the representations made regarding the proposals and of the key
consultee responses.
i.
There had been approximately two hundred
representations received from the public with the majority in objection.
ii.
An online petition had been set up in 2012
entitled to ‘Refuse Conservation Area consent to demolish the Flying Pig Public
House’ which had around 14,500 signatures. Although it was not clear how many
signatures are related to the current application.
iii.
Over 2,800 comments had been made on this
petition, nine of which had been made since the current application had been
submitted. iv.
The key themes of objection around the
application were as follows:
i.
Extent of alterations to the Flying Pig would
impact on its viability as well as alterations to its charter as a local
community facility which supported the arts and music.
ii.
Additional office space was not required in the
city.
iii.
Omission of housing (extant planning permission)
was not in accordance with development plan; there was a demand for good
quality affordable housing in the city.
iv.
The scale of the development and the impact on
the character and appearance of the area including heritage assets such as the
conservation area, Botanical Garden, and war memorial.
v.
Impact on the amenity on the public house,
residents opposite and the botanical gardens in terms of over shadowing.
vi.
Additional traffic congestion in the surrounding
area and the impact on safe moving of pedestrians and cyclists.
vii.
Impact on wind marshal climate in a location as
there was already a wind tunnel effect caused by Botanic House.
viii.
Two local ward councillors had objected to the
application: · Councillor
McGerty objected on the grounds the proposal conflicts with LP policy 76
relating to the protection of public houses. · Councillor
Robertson objected to the office space proposed and there were no plans for
housing as originally sought.
ix.
Those in support of the application stated the
following: · The
proposal would remove obsolete office buildings. · The
application provided a catalyst for innovation. · A
level of investment should be welcomed post COVID 19 economic recovery. · Setting
the standard for exemplar sustainable development.
x.
Consultees stated the following: ·
Historic England: Aware that the two
blocks would be clearly visible all year round in views within the eastern
section of the Botanic Garden. ·
The scheme would undoubtedly have an impact on the
street scene along Hills Road, particularly southwards towards the Alms houses
at the junction of Hills Road and Brooklands Avenue, in comparison of the two
storey terrace buildings opposite. ·
Welcomed the retention of the Fly Pig and noted
the current scheme in its revised form would significantly enhance the setting
of the pub in comparison to the initial proposals. ·
Considered the proposals a moderate level of
harm to the significance of the Botanic Garden and the Glisson Road
conservation area; the harm would be less than substantial. ·
Had no objection on heritage grounds to the
application. ·
Conservation Officer: Apart from the
Flying Pig public house the buildings were of no historic interest; those
building being demolished did not contribute positively to the conservation
area. The Conservation Appraisal Area Town Scape Analysis Map indicated these
buildings as buildings which detract. ·
There was an opportunity for the area to be
enhanced particularly the conservation area street scape. This would not have
occurred with the previous proposals due to the building’s height and other
design aspects, with the main impact on the Botanic Garden, the appearance of
the conservation area and the integrity of the Flying Pig. ·
The current proposals had significantly reduced
the degree of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and
Botanic Garden if the scheme was implemented to less than substantial harm. ·
Would recommend conditions regarding materials
and structural integrity of the Flying Pig. ·
Urban Design Officer: Comments during the
pre-application design process had resulted in substantial reduction in scale
and massing, integration of the Flying Pig, changes to materials and detailed
design of the buildings. ·
In urban design terms the scheme had been well
considered and was an improvement of the extant consented scheme. ·
Landscape Officer: With regards to the
landscape and townscape visual impact assessment the proposed development had
been through an extensive pre application process which resulted in multiple
design adjustments because of feedback received. ·
The landscape team have had extensive discussion
regarding the content and viewpoint selections of the LVIA
(Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment); considered the quality of the LVIA to
be high and the conclusions fair and correct. ·
Whilst the scheme cannot be hidden by vegetation
the verified views show the buildings will be screened in part by trees and
vegetation in the summer months. ·
Materials do not create stark differences but
was warm in tone. ·
Considered the buildings had struck the right
balance between harm and positive contribution to the street and the city which
is acceptable. ·
Satisfied with the distribution of garden
spaces, both public and private in and around the buildings. However, there
were points which required resolution and regarding the planting pits of street
trees, the impact on the basement and drainage. ·
Shadow studies provided during pre-application
should be updated and submitted to represent the current proposal. ·
Tree Officer: There were no trees of
value on the site at present. ·
There was a limited number of trees proposed for
the scale of the site. ·
Concerns raised regarding root volume; given the
lack of break out route systems. ·
The agricultural impact assessment showed
branches and roots that have grown into the site to be removed to make way for
construction. Case by Ward
Councillor: Councillor Robertson
spoke as a Ward Councillor and made the following points:
i.
Virtual meet with the developers a few weeks
before this meeting to express concern the consent for housing on site had been
ignored.
ii.
Important to recognise that some of the site had
been added to the original consent.
iii.
Acknowledged it was a site that required
development. iv.
The approved 2007 application did not include
Francis House or the building in front of it, but the remainder of the site and
the car park included, although a smaller site this application included 156
housing units.
v.
In 2008, a variation was allowed, so the first
phase could be constructed (Botanic House), but the rest of site had been left.
vi.
The LP identified the site for employment,
residential and retail. vii.
Believed that housing was an important part of
the consent (although expired) on the site. viii.
Would like to see the Francis House area of the
site to have housing on as this part of the city was already heavily developed
with offices; there was too many offices proposed to be built on site and the dominance
of offices was overwhelming. ix.
The impact of the COVID virus on home working
should be recognised; it was possible that there would be empty offices waiting
to be filled.
x.
Agreed with the petitioner that there should be
some retention to the Flying Pig. xi.
Had hoped the developers would recognise the
commitment to providing housing was valued and should be an important part of
the development. xii.
The proposal was for 1700 people to work on the
site and questioned where these people would live and they travel to the site;
the transport assessment had yet to be completed and no travel plan had been
created. xiii.
Requested the Planning Officer investigated the
need for housing and the need for offices; would like to see the outcome of the
research and the travel assessment before consideration by the planning
committee. xiv.
The Tree Officer’s concern should be considered.
xv.
The developers had highlighted the importance of
sustainability but questioned if this were a net zero site so this needed to be
improved; if there was housing on site this would be a requirement. Members’
Questions and Comments: In response to
Members questions and comments the Planning Officer said the following:
i.
The proposal did not include affordable housing;
the extant permission had included 156 residential units of which 62 were to be
affordable housing units.
ii.
The scheme was now for office-based development,
office campus and retention of the Flying Pig as presented; the proposal would
be assessed on this plan. However, the applicant had to justify the lack of
provision of residential in the scheme.
iii.
With regards to the extant planning permission,
phase 1 was Botanic House and phase 2 the 156 residential units, including the
Flying Pig as part of this phase. The consent was extant and could be
implemented at any time.
iv.
The site was not part of the conservation area
when permission was granted; this came after in 2012.
v.
The proposal retained the front element of the
bar and sitting area of the Flying Pig, removed the rear section of the building,
extending further back to provide additional services, including accessible
toilet and services in the basement.
vi.
The Conservation Officer was satisfied with the
proposal regarding the Flying Pig; not withstanding that there would be some level of harm to the
building but would be less than substantial harm measured against the National
Planning Policy Framework for Heritage Assets. The Assistant
Director said the following:
i.
As part of the work on the new LP there would be
a “lesson learnt review” on the station area development and the surrounding
area.
ii.
Reminded the Forum that the 2018 LP had taken a
long time to be adopted; therefore, some of the policies had been carried forward
several years without analysis. In response to
Members’ questions the agent said the following
i.
A draft framework travel plan had been submitted
as part of the application which would be discharged through conditions once
occupiers were known.
ii.
Had engaged with both the County Council
(highways authority) and the City Council to clarify the intent to manage
future travel plan(s).
iii.
A travel plan training budget would be available
for future tenants with a central co-ordinator (if there were multiple
occupants) to manage the travel plan(s) across the site.
iv.
The highways authority in principle had agreed
with the transport assessment; mitigation included improvements to the cycle
network along Hills Road, relocation of bus stops and the creation of a new
toucan crossing. Discussions were still taking place regarding wider
improvements.
v.
With regards to the LVIA, had worked closely
with the Urban Design and Landscape Officer to agree where the most sensitive
views would be in respect of the scheme. Then began the process of surveying
and using GPS coordinates to obtain a verified view.
vi.
Had undertaken extensive engagement with
Cambridge University and the Botanic Garden who agreed the conclusions of the
LVIA were robust and a much more appropriate scheme was being brought forward.
vii.
At the point extant permission was granted the
applicant did not own the entire site. Further land had since been obtained
allowing a master plan to be brought forward for the full site.
viii.
The Botanic Gardens had stated the impact of a
residential scheme would have a greater effect to their site than the scheme
proposed.
ix.
Potential conflict on the residential amenity
and that of the Flying Pig (well known for its support of the Cambridge music
scene).
x.
Recognised the impact that COVID-19 had on the
workplace with homeworking. It had also shown how important human interaction
was with a loss of productivity and creativity. It was important for
individuals to return to the workplace when safe to do so.
xi.
The height of the tallest building was ground
plus six-storey and was setback on the tallest element.
xii.
Could not answer how many individuals who worked
at Botanic House cycled to work; would clarify post meeting.
xiii.
The building in its current form would not suit
residential living; designed as a 21st century office for a
multi-let beehive of activity.
xiv.
The design was high up on the urban greening
factor. There was greening of the ground floor with extensive planting with
potential of greening of the first-floor canopy. Could review whether a
biophilic planters’ edge in the space between buildings A&B was possible as
a minor amendment. The greening and planting of the roof top would be a benefit
to the insect community.
xv.
Working to encourage sustainable access, taking
advantage of being close to the station, with 1300 cycle spaces within the
basement for occupants, significantly reducing the level of car parking each
year.
xvi.
Working to mitigate the impact on the junction
of Station Road and Hills Road by improving the access down Hills Road; moving
the junction into the site which was currently south of Botanic House.
Providing a new Toucan Crossing opposite the southern building away from the
junction. Summing up by the
Agent
i.
Noted within the planning statement the primary
purpose of the planning system was to contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development, which it was hoped had been demonstrated throughout
the application.
ii.
There were many aspects to sustainability and
the National Planning Policy Framework directed planners to consider the
social, economic, and environmental objectives. The development would be the
first in Cambridge to exceed the policy and achieve BREEAM Outstanding.
iii.
To achieve BREEAM Outstanding the application
must score 85% or above against the BRE criteria; the application scored 92% of
all possible credits and would be operationally zero carbon. This was a direct
response to the city councils’ declaration of climate emergency and put the
application in the top 1% of all buildings in the United Kingdom. iv.
The current LP outlined the development and
vision for 22,100 jobs and 12 hectares of new employment land.
v.
Since the extant planning permission was granted
fourteen years ago and ten years since the delivery of Botanic House, the
remaining land had been obtained. This had allowed the application to respond
to policy requirement to provide a masterplan for the site which protects and
builds upon the existing employment. vi.
LP Policy 2 sets out the spatial strategy for
the location of the employment development, supporting the economy with a wide
range of employment opportunities and the focus on growth within urban areas,
areas of major change, opportunity areas and areas in the city centre. vii.
The site has been in employment use for the last
century and was recognised as one of the most sustainable locations across the
city. The site was in an opportunity area and designated within two areas of
major change. viii.
There was not a better location to contribute to
the 22,100 jobs stated in the LP. ix.
There was less than 3-month supply of office
space within central area of Cambridge.
x.
Recognised a need for homes for workers to live
in. LP Policy 3 o sets out the spatial strategy of the location of new homes,
with 14,000 new homes to be delivered over the Plan period. xi.
The shared planning service (Cambridge City
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) published housing trajectory
on 1 April 2020 which stated the two planning authorities could demonstrate
that they could meet their individual housing requirements between 2011 and
2031. xii.
Important to focus on the benefits the
application could bring with all the external consultees agreeing this
commercial scheme was a better scheme for this site. xiii.
After engaging with the local community
understood the Flying Pig was an asset which should be preserved and have
responded to this. The building and community of the Flying Pig will be
maintained which will become accessible and inclusive to all which will remain
for the next 100 years. xiv.
The application proposed a highly sustainable
development which responded to the vision of the council for economic growth
and prosperity. A scheme which had been
master planned to deliver a workplace site and would safeguard key community
assets, improve the public realm on a key route into the city.
i.
There was no masterplan for this site as
required by LP Policy 21 with no reference to such a plan in any of the
supporting documents to this application.
ii.
If a masterplan existed much of the topics for
discussion raised at the meeting would have been addressed in the master plan
process. Such a process would normally be conducted by the relevant planning
authority and not the applicant.
iii.
There should be on the council’s website a
record of the consultation responses; usually the council would arrange
workshops to discuss several issues. Discussions could have taken place much
earlier. iv.
Questioned if the extant permission was
proceedable and believed that conservation area consent was required for
demolishing the Flying Pig.
v.
LP Policy 76 required justification in terms of
development. The proposal would not sustain the Flying Pig economically once
the development was complete, the capacity would not be as it was now in terms
of accommodating customers. vi.
Security to the site had not been considered
with a small hedge running along the garden area which would not stop access. vii.
Ignored the public concerns of the viability of
the Flying Pig. viii.
There had been no indication of what would
happen while the Flying Pig was shut, if it were to be shut. ix.
Stated that the Director of Stone Realestate had said in 2019 of the Flying Pig “ if we
design a scheme that wraps around it which could be done the pub would have to
shut during the development, if it closes for 2-3 years we think it won’t
survive.”
x.
LP policy 76 stated it must be demonstrated that
the viability of the public house will not be affected. If the Flying Pig were shut for a prolonged
period it would be affected. The application should be refused on this ground
alone. xi.
Suggested the proposed buildings could be pulled
back behind the Flying Pig. xii.
There had been no indication there would be
sufficient provision of different modes of transport to accommodate the
additional 1700 people arriving on site. xiii.
There would also be an increase in people
arriving in the city, not just to this site. By 2031 there would be an
additional 14000 people working at the biomedical campus at the Addenbrookes
site; plus, the additional number of individuals working in the new offices
built along Station Road. xiv.
Would ask the application to be refused unless
the public house was left untouched. Summing up by the
Ward Councillor.
i.
There were some questions which had remained unanswered
and needed to be addressed.
ii.
Reiterated the concern at the lack of housing on
site, mainly affordable housing.
iii.
If the offices were to be built and then found there
was no requirements, they could be converted to housing but there would be no
affordable housing provided as a result. Build what was known to be needed. iv.
Residents moving next to or close to a public
house usually were aware of what they were moving to.
v.
The applicants concern of creating jobs in the
area needed to be widened to recognise that housing was as important. vi.
Challenged the statement of three-month supply
in the city. vii.
Although the buildings were not as high as first
proposed they were still higher than Botanic House and were too dominant to the
area. viii.
This was a better scheme than the one before;
but the one before had been of an appalling standard. Final Comments of
the Chair
i.
Summarised the main issues discussed.
ii.
Suggested a meeting between the case officer,
the applicant and petitioner to discuss some of the issues raised.
iii.
Would encourage the applicant to keep in touch
with the petitioner throughout the process particularly if there were any
amendments to the scheme. iv.
Suggested the Planning Officer hold discussions
with community representatives on issue that had been raised.
v.
Minutes of the Development Control Forum would
be made available to the relevant parties and published on the city council
website. vi.
A copy of the minutes would be attached to the
Planning Officer’s report when the application would be considered at a future
Planning Committee. |