Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2 - Guildhall
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Opening Remarks by Chair Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. He stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Baigent, Lord, Page-Croft and Councillor Martinelli as Ward Councillor. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations were made. |
|
Application and Petition Details Application No:
19/1159/FUL Site Address: Park Street Car Park Description: Demolition of existing multi-storey
car park and erection of 227 bed aparthotel (Use Class C1) alongside 225 space
underground public car park, public cycle store and associated works Applicant: Marick Management Ltd
& CIP LLP Agent: ELG
PLanning Address: Gateway House 55 Coniscliffe Road Darlington Co. Durham DL3 7EH Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Park Parade Case
Officer: Ganesh Gnanamoorthy Text of Petition: See under 5 below Minutes: Application
No: 19/1159/FUL Site
Address: Park Street Car Park Description: Demolition of
existing multi-storey car park and erection of 227
bed aparthotel (Use Class C1) alongside 225 space underground public car park,
public cycle store and associated works Applicant: Marick Management Ltd
& CIP LLP Agent: ELG
PLanning Address: Gateway House 55 Coniscliffe Road Darlington Co. Durham DL3 7EH Lead Petitioner: Resident of Park Parade Case Officer: Ganesh Gnanamoorthy |
|
Minutes: The grounds for
asking for a Forum on this application are as follows: Planning to
consider: 1.
Risk to surrounding properties of structural
effects from alterations to water table due to three storey excavation, and tanking
piling. (Properties in Park Parade were affected by Impact of piling during Wyng Gardens, Trinity Hall development in Thompsons Lane;
which is some streets away. Portugal Street has very old drainage canalisation
and multiple basements) Small basement excavation at Union Site has impacted
water table. 2.
Bulk and height of Building – Appears to exceed the
development parameters set by the 2016 Scrutiny Committee. (Building is now 6
storeys off Round Church Street; 4+1 was proposed) 3.
Problems with Resident Parking in the ‘Park’ area –
which includes Park Street and Round Church St. (Despite assurances re Varsity
Hotel and Post Graduate Accommodation not being eligible for resident permits;
both now use their local address to incorrectly obtain Permits) 4.
Severe difficulties with vehicle turning space will
impact car park exit and ingress, cause congestion at Maypole end of Park
Street, and add to pollution risk to school. (Deliveries will occur to Maypole
Pub, Hotel Hawks Club and School). Current proposals for hoarding on site
perimeter during construction leave NO vehicle turning space. 5.
As a council-commissioned development on a
council-owned site, the building seeks to meet only the minimum sustainability
standard required under planning policy and it will not be net carbon neutral,
despite the council’s target for carbon neutrality and its declaration of a
climate emergency. 6.
Jordans Yard is a risk area for attracting rough
sleepers. 7.
Current proposal shows 26 electric vehicle charging
points in the car park. This is very limited – Tesla now third best selling vehicle (August 2019). Residents have no
access to e charging on their streets. 8.
Overlooking and sound proofing provision adjacent
to Maypole and Portugal Place inadequate. Park Street Liaison Group 5.8.2019 were informed as follows ‘AH confirmed the scheme steps back
almost 4 metres at 1st floor level reducing the impact on the
Maypole PH’. 9.
Public toilets are a general facility open to all,
this development of 240 car parking space and 252 Cycle spaces requires public
toilets. Current provision at Quayside inadequate. Current alteration proposals
inadequate. 10.
Retention of Bollards at Park Street, Lower Park
Street Junction. 11.
Retention of current restriction at Cote Brasserie
to all but authorised vehicles to Bridge Street from Northampton Street
direction. Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns? Yes If Yes, please explain: Planning should only be granted on condition: 1.
Developer must provide evidence that there will be
no impact on the water table or on the structural integrity of surrounding
buildings during or consequent to construction. Developer must provide
monitoring open to all during the construction phase. 2.
Require developer to place more plant in Basement
with consequent height reduction off Round Church Street. 3.
Planning should be conditional on the exclusion of
both Round Church Street and Park Street addresses of the development, being
eligible for Resident parking in the Park area. This to include visitor and
trade parking. 4.
Planning should be conditional on the
re-landscaping of the end of Park Street near the Maypole. This should
incorporate pavement area for vehicle intermittent use for parking and
increasing turning space. During construction hoarding needs to be planned
differently leaving lorry turning space in this area. 5.
The building should be redesigned to meet BREEAM
Outstanding classification to express the council’s determination to take a
lead towards carbon neutrality in the city on this premier site, the
development of which is completely under its own control. Your own Heritage
Impact Assessment states: ‘In recent years focus on sustainability has reduced
the status of the car in our towns and cities and in Cambridge removing cars
from the city centre is a key priority’. 6.
Jordans Yard to be provided with gates for closure
out of hours, managed by restaurant / hotel. 7.
Developer to ensure infrastructure available in all
levels of car park for future expansion of e charging provision in line with
transition to e vehicles over 20 years. Residents to have access to 4 resident
parking spaces with e charging in the car park. 8.
As well as angled windows suggested lower half of
window should be opaque. Additional sound proofing measures such as triple
glazing provided. Sample mock up to be provided. Provision should be above the
level that is already considered, which is 5% above norms. Setback adjacent to
Maypole should be redesigned to deliver the ‘almost 4 metres at 1st
floor level’ stated; instead of current 2.2 metres. 9.
Development to provide public toilets, including
disabled toilet. 10.
Retention of Bollards at Park Street Lower Park
Street junction throughout construction and post construction. 11.
Retention of existing restriction to all but
authorised vehicles to Bridge Street at Cote Brasseries from Northampton Street
direction. Case by Applicant 1)
The proposal was for a 5 storey 4 star aparthotel
(C1 use) and would include a gym and a café. 2) The
triple basement car park would remain in the ownership of the Council and the
management of the car park would be undertaken by the Council’s Car Park team. 3) Highlighted
electric charging provision in the car park. 4) There
would be a publicly accessible court yard with ecological measures. 5) The
development included sustainability measures such as PV panels, Air Source Heat
Pumps, a green roof and sustainable drainage. 6) Staycity was the proposed hotel
operator. 7) Groundwater
monitoring, investigation and testing had been completed prior to the
submission of the application. The ground conditions were considered suitable
for this scheme and the Environment Agency have confirmed that the proposal can
be constructed in an acceptable way, although additional information would need
to be submitted by way of condition. This information can only be submitted
once more intrusive surveys have taken place and so planning permission would
need to be secured first. 8) If
approval was granted for the scheme, the Applicant undertook to carry out a
further 6 months groundwater monitoring followed by hydrological and ground
impact assessments. 9) Confirmed
that the findings of the ground movement and hydrology assessments could be provided
to the Planning Authority and Statutory Consultees via a planning condition. 10) Separate
information would be provided for respective Party Wall Awards. 11) Vibration,
movement, acoustic and dust monitoring would take place during demolition to
ensure the works were adequately managed and controlled. 12) A
construction management plan had been included in the planning application. 13) The
Applicant confirmed that the Park Street Planning Guidance Note had been taken
into consideration in the design of the scheme. It was noted that the Planning
Guidance Note was only guidance and that it had been prepared on the basis of
residential development which the Applicant submitted was no longer viable on
the site. 14) The
Planning Guidance Note also stated that future proposals would need to be in
accordance with National and Local Planning Guidance relevant at the time the
application was determined. 15) Historic
England and the Urban Design Officer had not raised any objections to the
development. 16) The
basement space currently has some elements of plant already including rainwater
harvesters, sprinklers and boilers. Plant items which were located on the roof
needed to be located on the roof for example solar panels and air source heat
pumps. 17) Proposed
materials viewed from Portugal Place would be of a higher quality than was
currently there at the moment. 18) More
sky would be visible if the development proceeded and privacy would be
protected with fixed glazed screens. This was demonstrated by work which had
been carried out by Point 2 Surveyors. 19) The
boundary of the development would be set back by 4 metres to the Maypole Pub. 20) In
response to a question from the Petitioner, the Applicant confirmed that in
relation to the exit on Round Church Street resident’s vehicles could not turn
left. 21) The
Union building currently being built by Trinity College would be taller than
the proposed development. 22) Jordan’s
Yard would have ecological elements, for example to encourage bees. 23) A
balancing act had been undertaken with the provision of the public court yard;
the building had been designed around the courtyard. 24) There
would be no Aparthotel guest or staff parking, provided that the loading bay
and taxi drop off points could be used by the Aparthotel. 25) The
Applicant confirmed that they were currently in discussions with Jesus College
regarding turning space for vehicles during construction. 26) BREEAM
‘excellent’ had been targeted; this was in accordance with planning policy.
There were elements of the application where this standard had been exceeded.
The application would go 20% above Part L Building Regulation requirements. 27) Confirmed
that a lot of work had been undertaken with the Cambridge Rough Sleeping Team.
The Applicant did not believe that gates would resolve the rough sleeping issue
and that targeted enforcement would be appropriate. The Applicant felt that
gates could adversely affect public access into Jordan’s Yard. 28) Specific
spaces for residents parking could not be provided. 29) Noted
the Petitioner’s concerns regarding on-looking and noise generation but stated
that these issues were equally important to residents of Portugal Place and
guests of the proposed aparthotel. The applicant
considered that their proposals were well balanced. There was sound
proofing 5db above British Standards and the windows would be sealed and fixed
and not openable for guests. 30) Public
toilets would not be provided as part of the scheme but there was an additional
changes places facility being added to the facilities already available at
Quayside. 31) Bollards
at the Park Street, Lower Park Street junction would be retained.
32)The
Applicant welcomed further discussions with the Petitioners regarding
the existing restriction to all but authorised vehicles Bridge Street at
Cote Brasserie from Northampton Street direction. Case by
Petitioners 1) Thanked
Ward Councillors for their support. 2) Acknowledged
the work that had been put into the application by the Architect, particularly
in relation to materials. 3) The
Petitioners were pleased the Applicant had committed to a further 6 months’
work on the water table issue. 4) Expressed
concerns regarding the Party Wall agreements. 5) Expressed
concerns regarding ground water. 6) Commented
that the adjacent Union building which was in the
process of being constructed had encountered problems with the King’s ditch;
they had had to pump 1 metre of water out of the development. The proposed
development would have lower basement levels than the Union building and
therefore may encounter greater problems. These issues were highlighted in the
geological report. 7) Asked
for greater assurances regarding the excavation of the basement. 8) Asked
for the noise and vibration monitoring to be extended further and commented
that when Trinity Hall constructed their development, they took
photographs. The Petitioner had had to
engage a Structural Engineer, as the student accommodation which had been built
had weighed everything down. He was pleased that noise and vibrations would be
monitored and asked for assurances that there would be interventions if the
noise and vibration limits were exceeded. 9) Asked
for warranty agreements for properties potentially affected by the development. 10) Noted
that the application described the development as a 5 storey development but
felt that this was incorrect and it should be described as a 6 storey
development. 11) Noted
that plant items had been relocated to Round Church Street and congratulated
the Architect as this went a long way to modify the site in a sympathetic
manner. 12) Referred
to development which had been undertaken at the Varsity building and commented
that he thought parking permits had been restricted as part of that development
and asked if some parking provision could be provided for residents. 13) Queried
the development’s long term arrangements and the future possibility that the
aparthotel could be turned into residential accommodation. 14) The
Petitioners asked for an update on discussions the applicant was having with
Jesus College regarding space for vehicles to turn around. They also queried
what would happen when portacabins were sited on the
road and how vehicles would turn around. They also expressed concerns about
deliveries which would obstruct vehicles being able to turn around. 15) Commented
that they understood that traffic restrictions on Park Street would remain in
place and that drop off points would only be for taxis. This would mean that all traffic for the aparthotel would
drive down Park Street, which was a very busy street and questioned how the
traffic would be accommodated. The situation was compared to Parsons Lane,
where the street had not been widened and there were double yellow lines. Every
time the Petitioner drove down the street there was a vehicle parked in the
road which meant that residents had to drive on to the pavement to be able to
pass. This put pedestrians at risk. A
couple of solutions to this issue were suggested, 1) to reduce the capacity of
the car park, which would mean less traffic driving down Park Street and 2)
ensure that vehicles could not stop on the road by introducing double yellow
lines or make provision for a drop off point. 16) The
Petitioner’s asked that it was noted that not only was Park Street a busy 2 way
traffic cul-de-sac but it was also a busy pedestrian through route for people
to walk into town / work and therefore asked the applicant to re-consider landscaping
in this area. 17) Asked
for clarification whether the development was totally electric or whether any
gas would be used in the building. 18) Asked
whether a vertical ground source heat pump had been considered. 19) Expressed
concerns regarding Jordan’s Yard. 20) Stated
that public toilets should be provided as part of the development. 21) Did
not accept what had been said about resident’s electric charging parking
provision and stated that there could be residents’ electric charging parking
provision with appropriate priority signage.
22) Commented
that it was the first time that the Petitioner’s had understood the
fenestration and building mass facing the Maypole. 23) Asked
for clarification regarding the fenestration on the top floor. 24) Appreciated
the amount of greenery and asked how the green wall would be irrigated. 25) Was
pleased to hear that the bollards at the Park Street / Lower Park Street
junction would be retained. 26) Asked
for clarification from the Highways Authority and the Applicant about residents
parking permits. Case Officer’s
Comments: 1) Details
regarding the application were sent to neighbouring properties. 2) 109
letters of objection had been received and the main issues of concern were the
impact on local businesses, the scale and mass of the development, parking and
the new Jordan’s Yard. 3) 26
letters of support had been received and the main points raised were that the
development provided an improved appearance compared to a car park. It improved access to Jordan’s Yard, it could
improve tourism, it would provide electric vehicle charging facilities and it
increased employment opportunities. 4) Statutory
consultees who had not raised any objections included Historic England and the
Planning Policy Officer. 5) Statutory
consultees who had asked for conditions included: Highways, Ecology and the
Landscape Officer. 6) Statutory
Consultees who had asked for further information included: the Lead Local Flood
Authority, the Environmental Health Officer, the Tree Officer and the
Conservation Officer. Case by Ward
Councillors Councillors Bick and Porrer spoke as a Ward
Councillors on behalf of local residents. They made the following points: 1) This
was a City Council owned site, which presented a special opportunity. 2) There
was feeling amongst residents that there had been inadequate public debate on
the following issues a) car parking and how this fitted with the broader
aspirations of the city’s transport strategy to discourage car trips into the
city centre. This was a one-time decision in 50 years concerning the use of the
site and b) why the proposed development was for a hotel and not residential
development. There were already a large
number of hotel schemes in the pipeline in the city centre. The City’s requirement
for visitor accommodation was already being met by the private sector and
therefore it questioned why a public body was not delivering housing. 3) Wanted
to recognise that a lot of stakeholder consultation had been undertaken. 4) Welcomed
the courtyard (ie: Jordan’s Yard) being included
within the development. 5) Expressed
disappointed that improvements to the relationship with the Maypole pub could
not have been made at the ground floor and noted that these had been done to
the first floor and above. 6) Recognised
that cycle parking provision had been improved and that the Cambridge Cycle
Campaign had helped with this. 7) Noted
that it was frustrating the measures that the planning system could deliver
with regards to Climate Change. 8) Noted
that in the mid 2020s buildings would no longer be
able to be fitted with a gas supply, various responses had been provided by the
Council regarding the use of gas as part of this development. He had been told
that the gas supply was a backup fuel provision and then he had also been told
that the gas supply was intended to supply 22% of the peak energy demand for
the building. 9) He
noted that the delivery of the site had been delayed for a year and asked
whether the use of gas as an energy supply could be reconsidered. 10) It
was not acceptable that the public toilets were proposed to be removed and
questioned whether the council would be compliant with their equality
commitments. 11) Was
unhappy that cycle parking provision was at the cost of public toilet
provision. 12) Asked
whether a couple of car parking spaces could be removed so that that the public
toilets could be provided. 13) The
Quayside toilets were a 5 minute away from this development which would be some
distance for some individuals to access.
14) Did
not want to encourage anti-social behaviour, with individuals using gardens if
public toilets were not available. 15) No
details had been provided how local businesses could offer up their own toilets
for members of the public. It was also noted that the current developers were
not offering up their own toilets to be used by members of the public. 16) The
Local Plan policy 73, paragraphs 8.15 and 8.16 provids
that public amenities should not be removed. Members’ Questions and Comments: The Applicant made the following comments in response to Members’
questions: 1) The
additional 6 month ground water monitoring would be undertaken using existing
wells in the car park, if these were unable to be used then they would install
a rig. The monitoring would be done
during the winter period which was the most onerous period. 2) Residents
on the north and eastern elevation of the development should not be effected by
light pollution as the Environmental Health Officer had recommended that black
out blinds were provided and that this issue was secured by condition. 3) An
existing tree would need to be removed so that the basement could be
constructed however following construction, 3 further trees would be planted in
its place. 4) Consideration
had been given to ensure the building could be used during hot summers. All
windows would be fixed paned windows. The hotel operator used a better standard
of window than others and there would be mechanical ventilation. 5) A
noise assessment had been submitted as part of the application. Crunches would
be used rather than breakers and hoarding would be present which would reduce
the noise impact. There would be on/off periods of construction so that the
level of noise would be broken up. There would also be a trigger alarm so that
if a certain noise level was reached contractors would know that they would
have to adjust their techniques or stop work at that point. 6) If
the ground water monitoring results showed that additional measures were
required then these would have to be mitigated. 7) Portacabins were required for the
piling stage of construction, in discussions with the Highways Authority they
were being located in the best location available. The Union building should be
completed before the construction of this development commences so further
pavements should be available. 8) Banksmen
would be on site between 8-6pm when works were being undertaken and they would
be guiding traffic. 9) The
applicant had been liaising with the nearby School so that they could deliver
health and safety talks to the pupils and also hoped that they would design
murals to go on the hoarding. 10) The
Applicant’s recognised the area was a cross-point and wanted to make the area
as safe as possible. 11) There
shouldn’t be any vehicles waiting to deliver as there was an online booking
system. 12) There
was a drop off point for taxis and guests, which was time limited, the
applicant was still in discussions with the Highways Authority about this
issue. 13) Staycity (the hotel operator)
tended to have developments in urban locations and most of their clientele
generally used public transport. 14) The
Applicants agreed to discuss with Staycity about
having a system to manage the number of guests who would be travelling by
car. It was anticipated that their
guests would usually stay for 2-3 nights. 15) Jordan’s
Yard would be accessible via Park Street and Bridge Street. The café would be
open to the public and operated by Staycity. 16) More
benches had been located in Jordan’s Yard following consultation with the
School as teachers sometimes liked to sit outside for their lunch break. 17) The
Design and Access statement provides details about the design of the building
and the discussions with the Conservation Officer and the Urban Design
Officer. Inspiration for the design was
taken from Neal’s Yard in Covent Garden.
In terms of space the courtyard was meant to be a place you discovered
and where curiosity took you. 18) The
roof design was developed in collaboration with the Conservation Officer and
Urban Design Officer, there was originally a sharp corner in the building design
however following advice, this was removed and replaced with the reception
area. 19) The
application had been developed independently by the developer. 20) An
alternative use for the basement had been considered if the use of vehicles
decreased in the future. There was a BREEAM requirement to design buildings so
that they could be flexible spaces. They had designed in lifts which could
accommodate bicycles and mobility scooters. 21) The
development was utilising the most up to date technologies. Emerging technologies
included hydrogen technologies which may be able to be fitted but might impact
on the courtyard. 22) The
gas in the building was not for cooking but would be for peak energy demand
periods for example when a lot of guests were having showers. Using gas for
peak energy demand periods was recognised planning policy. The only alternative
would be to add in more Air Source Heat Pumps. Following
a point raised by Councillors, the Chair confirmed that there was no underlying
reason by the Conservation Officer had not provided comments on the application
to date, the officer was just in the process of
preparing their report. Summing up by the
Applicant 1) They
would look into the warranty and parking permit queries which had been raised
by the Petitioners. 2) They
were aware that green walls needed to be maintained well in order to survive;
they would come back to the Petitioners on the points raised regarding
irrigation and the suitability of different plants. Summing up by the
Petitioners 1) Reiterated
concerns about the proposed drop off point and the congestion that this would
cause. 2) Reiterated
concerns about further congestion coming down Bridge Street because of the
development. 3) Reiterated
concerns about the reduction in on-street disabled parking provision. 4) Reiterated
concerns about the Party Wall agreements and water levels. 5) Reiterated
concerns about the bulk and height of the development. 6) Commented
that someone needed to take responsibility for residents’ concerns regarding
parking permits. 7) Commented
that if Jesus College was going to open up their car park that Planning should
go beyond the landscaping currently proposed. 8) Gas
as an energy source should not be included in the development. 9) The
development should deliver BREEAM outstanding. 10) Agreed
with Ward Councillors comments that there should be
public toilet provision as part of the development. 11) Wanted
priority for residents’ for electric vehicle charging facilities. Final Comments of
the Chair 1) The
notes of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant
parties. 2) Asked
that any future discussions between the Applicant and the Petitioners took
place with a Planning Officer present. 3) The application would be considered at a future Planning Committee. |