Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
Note: EF Language School
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an application shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Application and Petition Details 12/0616/FUL 221 Hills Road Committee: Planning Committee Date: 4
July 2012 Application
No: 12/0616/FUL Site Address: EF Language School, 221 Hills Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 8RW Description: Demolition of the existing non residential
language school (Use Class D1 - Non-residential Education and Training Centres)
and replacement with a new purpose built language school with on site
accommodation for students (Use Class C2 - Residential Schools and Colleges). Applicant: Ms Bev Garth Agent: Mr Richard Owers Address: NRAP Architects, 13 - 15 Covent Garden,
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 2HS Telephone: 01223 464455 Lead
Petitioner: Mr Ray Frith Address:
2A Cavendish Avenue, Cambridge, CB1 7US Telephone: TBC Case
Officer: Miss Sophie Pain Text of Petition: The grounds for the DCF are: 1.
The proposed
development is too dominant in aspect on both Hills Road, Blinco Grove and
Cavendish Avenue 2. The proposed development will cause loss
of privacy and peace for immediate neighbours 3. The proposed development does not do
enough to alleviate the additional parking demands that it will create Minutes: Application and
Petition Details for 12/0616/FUL 221 Hills Road Committee: Planning Committee Date: 4
July 2012 Application No: 12/0616/FUL Site Address: EF Language School, 221 Hills Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 8RW Description: Demolition of the
existing non-residential language school (Use Class D1 - Non-residential
Education and Training Centres) and replacement with a new purpose built
language school with on site accommodation for students (Use Class C2 -
Residential Schools and Colleges). Applicant: Ms Bev Garth Agent: Mr Richard Owers Lead
Petitioner: Mr Ray Frith Case
Officer: Miss Sophie Pain Text of Petition: The grounds for the DCF are: 1. The proposed development is too dominant in aspect on both
Hills Road, Blinco Grove and Cavendish Avenue 2. The proposed development will cause loss of privacy
and peace for immediate neighbours 3. The proposed development does not do enough to
alleviate the additional parking demands that it will create. Opening
Remarks by Chair The Chair
outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. She stated no decisions would be taken at
the meeting. Case by Applicant Mr Owers gave a description of the proposed application and made the following points: 1)
Materials and detailing
would be sympathetic to the area. 2)
The site is on a major
arterial route accommodating a variety of scales and uses. 3)
The scheme scale and
massing could be justified in design terms. The scale of the design is
in-keeping with other buildings in Cambridge such as Blinco Grove. The height
would be similar to the existing building. 4)
The design aimed to
mitigate overlooking existing neighbours through the positioning of windows to
overlook common areas instead of houses, obscured glazing towards Lady Jane
Court, set back of the application building and trees on the perimeter. 5)
The design includes noise
mitigation features. A Porter and Nighttime Manager would oversee management of
these 6)
A shadow study suggested the
application would cause minimal overshadowing. 7)
The application should not
significantly affect existing parking issues in the area. The Highways Officer
has raised no concerns. Case by Petitioners Mr Dawson spoke on behalf of local residents.
He made the following points: 8)
Residents understood that EF
Language School wished to improve facilities, but took issue with this
application as it would inconvenience residents. 9)
A planning application for St
John’s Church (Hills Road) was dependent on a no noise post 10:00 pm condition.
Mr Dawson queried if
the EF Language School would be subject to a similar condition. 10)
Concerns of Local
Residents: ·
Proposal will have a
significant impact on resident’s amenities. ·
The building has a dominant
mass, there are no others as big in the area. It is the only commercial
building in a residential area. ·
Over development of site,
which is intensively used currently. ·
Insufficient living space
for students. ·
Overshadowing of
neighbour’s gardens. ·
Overlooking and associated
loss of privacy. ·
Noise and disturbance to
neighbours from the existing site, which could be exacerbated by the
application. ·
Safety of proposed site
entrances/exits. ·
Traffic flow and parking,
for service and commuter vehicles. ·
Inappropriate refuse store
location. Case by Ward Councillors Councillor Swanson spoke as a Ward Councillor
on behalf of local residents. She made the following points: 11)
Supported resident’s
comments that it was understandable that EF
Language School wished to improve facilities, but this application should do so
in an appropriate way. 12)
Referred to the Council
Tall Buildings policy and queried if the application would dominate St John’s
Church view. 13)
The applications’ plant
room was close to St John’s Church. The applications’ smoking area was close to
St John’s Church open space which is non-smoking. 14)
Referred to Environmental
Health comments. 15)
Suggested the site could
not accommodate expanded teaching and accommodation facilities. 16)
The South Area Parking
Review was underway. Cavendish Avenue was identified as an area for a possible
change of use. 17)
Concern over site parking
facilities. 18)
Suggested the application
was too big and out of context for the section of Hills Road it would be
located in. It was better suited to being a teaching and learning site, without
accommodation. Case Officer’s Comments: 19)
Details concerning the
application were sent to neighbouring properties. The consultation period was extended to 20 July
2012. 20)
A petition with 41 signatures requesting a
Development Control Forum had been received.
In addition to this, another petition was received from residents of
Lady Jane Court with 26 signatures, which did not request a Development Control
Forum. On the morning of the Forum,
written representations had been received from 36 addresses. 21)
Policy
consultations have been undertaken with statutory consultees: · Highways Agency: Noted 3 car parking spaces
would be retained on-site. Would seek further information regarding cycle parking
and servicing of site. Clarification
was required. · Head of Environmental Services: Requested
suite of conditions and informatives to address concerns. · Principal Arboricultural Officer: Raised
objections due to the impact on trees. · Sustainable Engineer: Objections raised. · Access Officer: Objections addressed. · Urban Design and Conservation, Policy and
Renewable Energy officers yet to respond. Members’ Questions and Comments: Mr Owers and Ms Garth answered as follows
in response to Members’ questions and comments: 22)
Amenity
space, a canteen and games room were provided as recreational facilities for
students. The School has a full time recreational programme; an Activities
Officer oversees off-site activities. Building facilities were only available
for students who had booked and paid for these. 23)
Internal
and external amenity space consisted of the perimeter space under trees, the
courtyard and terrace 24)
The School
has 1 on-site Supervisor and 2 on-site Assistants. The School would be happy to
accept proctorial control conditions for the application. 25)
Inspiration
for the application design had been taken from its surroundings to set the
architectural style and material palette. Design influences also came from
building recognised to be well designed, such as Accordia. 26)
Students
aged 16 and over could join the School. 27)
School
teaching hours were: ·
9:00 am –
5:00 pm Monday to Friday in the winter. ·
8:45 am –
6:30 pm Monday to Friday in the summer, classes would also be held Monday to
Saturday for a 5 week period. 28)
If the
application goes ahead, some increase in deliveries to service the school would
be expected for food and laundry. The Highways Authority has not commented on
the frequency of service vehicle trips, but no change is expected to the types
of vehicles servicing the school. 29)
Various
schemes had been considered to mitigate over dominance of Lady Jane Court, such
as a wall between the properties and consideration of a basement in the design.
If a storey was removed from the application design, it would reduce the number
of students the school could cater for, which would impact on its business
viability. 30)
The School
anticipated the application would lead to fewer commuter journeys as more
students would be located on-site, instead of travelling to it. 31)
The
application would seek to increase the provision of cycle parking on-site on
top of that already provided. The highways Authority were satisfied with
current provision, but the School recognised that additional students would
require extra facilities. 32)
The
application is not expected to affect on-site drainage, but this will be
reviewed. 33)
The Planning Officer
answered in
response to Members’ questions and comments that the application would require
a change of use from category D1 to C2. Summing up by the Applicant’s
Agent 34)
Noted
concerns from residents and would aim to take these on board through liaison
with city Officers. Summing up by the Petitioners 35)
Welcomed the opportunity for
liaison between residents and the Applicant. 36)
Queried the purpose of the
terrace if access would be controlled. 37)
Reiterated concerns previously raised with regards
to: ·
Traffic flow and parking. ·
Dominant mass and scale of the development. ·
Noise. Final Comments of the Chair 38)
The Chair
observed the following: ·
Notes of the Development Control Forum would be made
available to relevant parties. ·
Application to be considered at a future Planning
Committee. |