Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control
Forum. She stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|
Application and Petition Details 18/1002/FUL - 211-213 Newmarket Road & 2 Godesdone Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB5 8HA Application No:
18/1002/FUL Site Address: 211-213 Newmarket Road & 2 Godesdone Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB5 8HA Description: Demolition of existing buildings at
211-213 Newmarket Road and construction of a hotel (C1 use), with change of use
and conversion of 2 Godesdone Road to C1 use, and
provision of associated infrastructure. Applicant: MPMerchant (NR) Ltd and easyHotel Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd Address: Unex House 132-134 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 8PA
United Kingdom Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Riverside Case
Officer: Charlotte Burton Text of Petition: This site is not
suitable for budget hotel use and in any case is not in accordance with the
policy describing the need for hotel bedrooms. The application is
overdevelopment of this small site on primarily residential Godesdone
Road in the Riverside and Stourbridge Conservation Area. The overall quality of
the design is not in keeping with such an important site. The building is at a
gateway to the conservation area explicitly identified as critical in the
Eastern Gateway Policy. There is no landscaping to soften the impact of the
building. The transport statement
and hotel travel plan are completely inadequate to avoid negative impact on
residential amenity over a wide area as it will jeopardise road safety; increase
existing overnight parking stress; and generate many extra journeys in an area
already experiencing severe congestion. Approval of this
application would add to anti-social behaviour issues including drug dealing associated
with budget hotels. To address public safety there is a need for design changes
to the entrance as well as additional street lighting to avoid street
disturbance and noise. The application
does not show how deliveries in the street rather than a courtyard and guests
using taxis to arrive and waiting for departure would not increase air
pollution to unsafe levels. The application does not address the loss of
residential amenity from increased noise. Do you think there are changes that could be
made to overcome your concerns? Yes The site could be
suitable for a boutique hotel with a reasonable number of rooms, and internal
courtyard for drop offs; provision for disabled parking; and the reception /
delivery entrance, and a much better travel plan either with on-site parking /
compulsory valet parking / or a commitment in perpetuity to fund the extra
costs of the council rather than residents to enforce an extension to the
restriction hours of the neighbouring CPZs. Minutes: Application No: 18/1002/FUL Site
Address: 211-213 Newmarket Road & 2 Godesdone
Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB5 8HA Description: Demolition
of existing buildings at 211-213 Newmarket Road and construction of a hotel (C1
use), with change of use and conversion of 2 Godesdone
Road to C1 use, and provision of associated infrastructure. Applicant: MPMerchant (NR) Ltd and easyHotel Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd Address: Unex House 132-134 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 8PA
United Kingdom Lead Petitioner: Resident of Riverside Case Officer: Charlotte
Burton Text of Petition: This site is not
suitable for budget hotel use and in any case is not in accordance with the
policy describing the need for hotel bedrooms. The application is
overdevelopment of this small site on primarily residential Godesdone
Road in the Riverside and Stourbridge Conservation Area. The overall quality of
the design is not in keeping with such an important site. The building is at a
gateway to the conservation area explicitly identified as critical in the
Eastern Gateway Policy. There is no landscaping to soften the impact of the
building. The transport
statement and hotel travel plan are completely inadequate to avoid negative
impact on residential amenity over a wide area as it will jeopardise road
safety; increase existing overnight parking stress; and generate many extra
journeys in an area already experiencing severe congestion. Approval of this
application would add to anti-social behaviour issues including drug dealing
associated with budget hotels. To address public safety there is a need for
design changes to the entrance as well as additional street lighting to avoid
street disturbance and noise. The application
does not show how deliveries in the street rather than a courtyard and guests
using taxis to arrive and waiting for departure would not increase air
pollution to unsafe levels. The application does not address the loss of
residential amenity from increased noise. Do you think there are changes that could be
made to overcome your concerns? Yes The site could be
suitable for a boutique hotel with a reasonable number of rooms, and internal
courtyard for drop offs; provision for disabled parking; and the reception /
delivery entrance, and a much better travel plan either with on-site parking /
compulsory valet parking / or a commitment in perpetuity to fund the extra
costs of the council rather than residents to enforce an extension to the
restriction hours of the neighbouring CPZs. Case by Applicant A representative on
behalf of the applicant made the following points: i. Did not think that any new issues arose from the revised NPPF which had been issued that week. ii. Images were inserted in the presentation to give context of the site. iii. Commented that there had been a large number of third party representations, he went through the statutory consultation responses. iv. The Planning Policy Team had considered the application and said it was acceptable. v. The Urban Design and Conservation Team considered the scale and massing of the proposal was acceptable. vi. Commented that there was no landscaping on site at the moment but the scheme incorporated external planters along Newmarket Road / Godesdone Road to enhance the public realm. There would be an internal courtyard area which would include planters. vii. Amenity issues were addressed through a technical note. The Transport Assessment considered road safety as part of its scope. A travel plan had been submitted to address parking issues. viii. The applicant had spoken with the Environmental Health Team regarding air quality. ix. Easyhotel operated a zero tolerance policy in respect of anti-social behaviour. x. Noted that the Petitioner’s view was that the site was suitable for a boutique hotel however the proposal was for an Easyhotel with 90 rooms. xi. There was an internal courtyard for drop offs and their proposal had been accepted by the Highways Department. xii. There was a travel plan in place to manage guests. xiii. Pre-application discussions directed the reception / delivery entrance towards the commercial frontage. xiv. Design changes had been considered following the public exhibition and consultation with residents and further design ideas could be considered. Case by Petitioners A representative on
behalf of the petitioners made the following points: i.
This
was the third budget hotel on this small congested stretch of Newmarket Road. ii.
First
major concern was overdevelopment, the site was not
large enough to support budget hotel use. iii.
The
development's Godesdone Road frontage would be 50% of
the length of the Newmarket Road frontage. iv.
There
was a blind junction from Newmarket Road into Godesdone
Road so vehicles took a wide line when turning. v.
The 90
bedrooms proposed was more than all the bedrooms in
the whole of Godesdone Road. vi.
The
application proposes to step back the Godesdone Road
frontage to accommodate a drop off bay. vii.
The
site was smaller than the Travelodge or Premier Inn sites. viii.
There
were already 340 budget hotel rooms on this junction. ix.
Easyhotel wants
to locate 41% as many bedrooms as Travelodge onto a site that is only 17% of
the Travelodge site area and 74% as many bedrooms as Premier Inn into a site
that is only 31.5% of the Premier Inn’s site. x.
If the
same ratios were applied to site area as Travelodge and Premier Inn, the site
would support 38 bedrooms. xi.
The reception
area had no seating for guests to socialise. xii.
The
pavement at entrances was narrow and it was also narrow around the drop off
bay. xiii.
Budget
hotel guest’s behaviour can be disruptive for neighbours. This type of hotel
usually operated a lean staff model but with large numbers of guests which
could include stag / hen parties. xiv.
Fire
alarms were set off in the Travelodge; guests were evacuated at 2am which was
disruptive to Godesdone residents. One on-site staff
member cannot deal with all behavioural issues. xv.
Coaches
regularly parked on Newmarket Road despite travel plans providing for drop offs
at the rear of premises. xvi.
The
second concern expressed was that this was unsustainable development which
provided no social or environmental benefit to the community. xvii.
This
stretch of Newmarket Road was the resident’s ‘high street’ and supported a rich
mix of uses. Reference was made to the new local plan policy 22 which provided
that development should reflect the predominantly residential nature of the
area. xviii.
Commented
that if the site was given to hotel use it would take the opportunity away for
other local uses. xix.
The
city had already satisfied its projected budget hotel need set until 2031, it
was 11 rooms away from this projected need despite the growth period being 13
years away. xx.
The
Local Plan Inspector had identified a need for quirky 5* hotels. The
development did not meet the needs of residents or those in the local plan. xxi.
The
third concern was traffic impact, questioned if the site was appropriate at all
and commented on the impact on road safety and the local road network. xxii.
Questioned
how taxi drop offs would be enforced, following the Travelodge development. xxiii.
The
trip numbers on Godesdone Road will double. xxiv.
Resident’s
fourth concern was the overbearing effect of the proposed development on the
Conservation Area. Members Questions
and Comments Ward Councillor Massey made the following points: i. Referred to anti-social behaviour associated with budget hotels and also TripAdvisor comments regarding drug dealing, prostitution and human trafficking. ii. Police were notified of drug dealing, mugging and prostitution issues in the East Area and these issues were made a police priority at the last East Area Committee. iii. Budget hotels cut costs to the bone, which limited resources to tackle anti-social behaviour, this was why budget hotels should not be located in residential areas. iv. Budget hotels attracted stag / hen parties, the wheeling of suitcases late at night had an adverse effect on residents. v. Referred to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. vi. Could not see any benefit of the proposed development to the ward, which was the most diverse ward in the city. Ward Councillor Johnson made the following points: i. Referred to policy 77 of the new local plan, more weight could be attached following the Planning Inspector’s letter. ii. Referred to paragraph 8.47 of the Local Plan, the Hotel Future Study influenced policy 77. iii. 1500 bedrooms were identified in the Hotel Future Study (completed in 2012), the budget hotel room provision nearly exceeded the projected growth identified up to 2031. iv. Referred to a shortfall in 3-5* hotel sector. v. Easyhotel was a budget hotel brand, new hotels should be supported if they were at the upper end of hotel provision. Case Officer comments
i.
There were over 150 third party objections and
some representations in support received for this application. The application
would go to Planning Committee for determination. ii. Following the publication of the Planning Inspector’s report on Monday, the case officer would need to go through and address issues against the local plan policies. iii. The Planning Policy Team had said that the proposal was compliant with the adopted and emerging policy 77 but further discussions were needed with the Planning Policy Team. iv. In considering the impact on transport, an objection had been received from Highways particularly looking at Godesdone Road, further information had been submitted by the Applicant and comments were waited from Highways. v. It was difficult to make a clear link between anti-social behaviour and the budget hotel use proposed. vi. Commented on the availability of spill out space and residential amenity. vii. The Urban Design and Conservation team is supportive of the proposal in terms of scale and massing and the design of the frontage. viii. Cycle parking was in the process of being assessed by the Landscape Officer. ix. Environmental Health Team was satisfied with information submitted regarding air quality but other concerns remain outstanding. x. The Council’s Sustainable Drainage Engineer had raised issues which needed to be addressed by the Applicant. xi. The Council’s Access Officer had raised issues regarding the lack of accessible parking and the location of rooms within the hotel. During the Case
Officers comments the fire alarm sounded and the council building was
evacuated, the meeting reconvened at 11.32am. Planning Committee
Members’ questions and comments: The Applicant responded to Members’ questions as follows: i. The Applicant was still in discussions with Highways but would keep Members’ comments about traffic in mind. ii. The site would have its own bicycles for guests to use so they should not need to use other bikes for example Ofo bikes. iii. No food or beverages would be available on site. iv. A single laundry van would be present daily and would have a stay of 20 minutes, the layby should be suitable to accommodate the laundry van. v. It was proposed to have weekly refuse collections. vi. Bird boxes and the technical aspects of a green roof were being explored. vii. The applicant had had pre-application discussions with the Planning Officers and had considered SPD requirements. This was a considered application bearing in mind the Conservation Area. viii. The design model of EasyHotel was to provide a place for guests to sleep, guests would go out to eat so would not be hanging around the hotel and would be enjoying the city. ix. The ethos of the hotel was to accommodate people in small rooms it was not expected that people would stay for a long period of time. There were some rooms without windows, this was common in London. Some people liked to take advantage of the discount price for a room without windows. x. A typical room was 12-14sqm but disabled rooms were bigger. xi. Members of the public who were registered disabled and had blue badges could park their cars in the local area. The information on the booking system would make it clear that this was a car free site. xii. The site was in an urban area so the applicant would need to be mindful of construction timings and issues. Basement excavation would take one week. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent:
i.
Expressed thanks for holding the Development
Control Forum.
ii.
The application was a detailed application for
demolition and construction of a hotel.
iii.
The application contained a significant amount of
information.
iv.
Referred to the public exhibition which was well
attended at the beginning of the year.
v.
The statutory consultees either supported the
proposal, had no objections or issues could be addressed through condition.
vi.
There were comprehensive representations from third
parties but they would have to agree to disagree on certain issues.
vii.
Pre-application advice pre-dated the planning
application.
viii.
Referred to policy 20 in the SPD.
ix.
Acknowledged the discussion regarding the Hotel
Needs Assessment but commented that it was difficult to forecast hotels and
market issues.
x.
Commented that this was a real opportunity to bring
forward redevelopment. Summing up by the
Petitioners: i.
Pre-application advice to the applicant about the
intensity of use did not reassure the petitioners. ii.
The site was embedded in a residential street, if
people stayed daily this was 77-80 people staying daily, questioned how this
could be accommodated on a tiny street. iii.
Questioned if the drop-off bay was full what guests
did. iv.
Questioned what disabled guests would do if the
drop off bay was occupied. v.
Commented that there was not enough existing
resident’s parking. vi.
Questioned why Travelodge was used by the applicant
in the travel plan if it was not a comparator. vii.
Amenity space was not addressed by Easyhotel. viii.
Conservation Area legislation was clear,
development should preserve or enhance, there was no half way house compromise. ix.
This application would set a precedent for the rest
of Newmarket Road. x.
Regeneration should support the residential area. The applicant
agreed to provide a construction plan for digging the basement and a table to
show the sqm of rooms. Final Comments of
the Chair The
Chair observed the following: i. Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties. ii. Application
to be considered at a future Planning Committee. |