Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2 - Guildhall
Contact: Democratic Services Email: democratic.services@cambridge.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||
Application and Petition Details (21/00264/FUL / Blocks B2 & F2, Devonshire Quarter Devonshire Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire) Application No: 21/00264/FUL Site Address: Blocks B2 & F2, Devonshire Quarter
Devonshire Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire Description: Erection of two new buildings comprising
Class E(g)i/E(g)ii floorspace including ancillary accommodation/ facilities
with associated plant and cycle parking for Block F2 and an Aparthotel (Class
C1) with multi-storey car park for Network Rail, including car and cycle
parking, for Block B2 with associated plant, hard and soft landscaping and
permanent access from Devonshire Road to the Cambridge Station Car Park,
utilising the existing pedestrian and cycle access, restricted to emergency
access to the railway only. Applicant: C/O Agent Agent: Bidwells, Emma Thompson Address: Bidwells Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD Lead
Petitioner: South Petersfield Residents
Association Case
Officer: Toby Williams Text of Petition: We, the undersigned, request a Development Control Forum on the above planning application to address matters that the applicant believes have been adequately addressed or are immaterial considerations, but which we believe are of critical importance to the long-term success of this development: 1) Block B2 height and mass. 2) Future-proofness of B2, including ability to convert the multi-storey car park into cycle parking, partially or wholly in phases, preserving at least disabled parking bays, and ensuring safe access and egress for people using cycles. 3) Accommodation of over-ranked CCLT taxis. 4) Reinstatement of more green planting between Devonshire Rd and the surface car park. 5) Great Northern Rd: mini-roundabout, parking bays and replacement of trees. 6) Impacts on food parks and community events behind One Station Square. 7) Wind tunnel effects along the Northern Access Road. Minutes: 21/6/DCF
Application
and Petition Details (21/00264/FUL / Blocks B2 & F2, Devonshire Quarter
Devonshire Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire) Application and
Petition Details (21/00264/FUL / Blocks B2 & F2, Devonshire
Quarter Devonshire Road Cambridge
Cambridgeshire) Application No:
21/00264/FUL Site Address: Blocks B2 & F2, Devonshire Quarter
Devonshire Road Cambridge
Cambridgeshire Description: Erection of two new buildings
comprising Class E(g)i/E(g)ii
floorspace including ancillary accommodation/
facilities with associated plant and cycle parking for Block F2 and an
Aparthotel (Class C1) with multi-storey car park for Network Rail, including
car and cycle parking, for Block B2 with associated plant, hard and soft
landscaping and permanent access from Devonshire Road to the Cambridge Station
Car Park, utilising the existing pedestrian and cycle access, restricted to emergency access to
the railway only. Applicant: C/O Agent Agent: Bidwells, Emma Thompson Address: Bidwells Bidwell House Trumpington
Road Cambridge CB2 9LD Lead Petitioner: South Petersfield Residents Association Case Officer: Toby Williams Text of Petition: We, the undersigned,
request a Development Control Forum on the above planning
application to address matters that the applicant believes have been
adequately addressed or are immaterial considerations, but
which we believe are of critical importance to the long-term success of
this development: 1) Block B2 height
and mass. 2) Future-proof of
B2, including ability to convert the multi-storey car park into cycle parking,
partially or wholly in phases, preserving at least disabled parking bays, and
ensuring safe access and egress for people using cycles. 3) Accommodation of
over-ranked CCLT taxis. 4) Reinstatement of
more green planting between Devonshire Rd and the surface car park. 5) Great Northern
Rd: mini-roundabout, parking bays and replacement of trees. 6) Impacts on food
parks and community events behind One Station Square. 7) Wind tunnel
effects along the Northern Access Road Case by Applicant
i.
Since the planning permission had been refused
in October 2020, correspondence had taken place with petitioners and other
interested parties.
ii.
The issues raised by the petitioner had not been
the issues for refusal.
iii.
Several significant changes had been made to the
application since the refusal. This was now a much better scheme with
considerable changes to the F2 scheme segregated footpath and cycle path. iv.
Massing of the hotel scheme (B2) has been pushed
back 6.8m from Carter Bridge and 5.2m from the top floor. The profile of the
roof was significantly smaller reducing the impact in a conservation area.
v.
Was able to demonstrate the retro fit of a future
potential cycle park conversion if required on site (not part of the
application). vi.
Introduction of tree planting between the
carpark and Devonshire Road created a green dense boundary and a green gateway
from the north. vii.
New pedestrian footpath on the east side of the
cycle route framed by a new planning scheme, creating separation between the
footpath and cycle path and car park on the other side. viii.
The swale on the west side created separation to
the cycle path. ix.
The pattern of tree planting had been changed
along the north side of Great Northern Road to accommodate the cycle path.
x.
There would be no reduction in the number of
trees along the Great Northern Road, but the new pattern of the trees would be
used to guide the cyclist through. xi.
Planting would create filtered views to the
development. xii.
The proposed planting of the trees and shrubs on
Devonshire Road was in response to comments at a Development Control Forum in
2008; planting was denser with an increase in the number of trees and plans
being used. xiii.
Station Square was designed collaboratively with
Network Rail, Brookgate and the train operator. xiv.
The rank itself was not reliant in its operation
on any additional ranking. The use of the existing station surface carpark for
the use of over ranking was an informal arrangement between the taxis and the
train operator at that time. xv.
The station forecourt was the only area defined
as a rank. xvi.
Proposed a taxi management plan for the
transition of the start of the decommissioning of the surface carpark and construction
of the B2 and F2 schemes. xvii.
The plan would detail the number of marshals in
place and the length of time they would be employed on site. It would also look
at the level of enforcement required to deal with over ranking on Station
Square and taxis waiting on the surrounding streets in the CB1 area. xviii.
Stakeholders to agree the initial powers of the
marshals and how the monitoring of the arrangement would continue. xix.
One of the key aspects of the application was to
provide pedestrian and cyclists propriety; three priority crossings on Great
Northern Road and two between B2 and F2. xx.
The crossing point directly to the west of the
mini roundabout was now a zebra crossing. xxi.
Independent wind testing had confirmed the
access road would meet all the laws and safety requirements. xxii.
This application was now under the 2018 BREEAM
requirements. Case by
Petitioners
i.
Petition was supported by South Petersfield
Resident Association, Great Northern Road Residents Association and CamCyle.
ii.
Block B2 height and mass: appreciated the
changes that the applicant has made but residents feel the scale and mass is
still inappropriate for its location. The relative scale of B2 to F2 creates an
unbalanced and overwhelming impression on the residential area on Devonshire
Road.
iii.
Design had no heritage connection as a gateway
from the Mill Road Conservation Area. iv.
Futureproofing of B2; believed this was a
material consideration. The National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
and the Local Plan have clear policies to meet future demand of sustainable and
public transport. The objective of sustainable development can be summarised as
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
v.
Future proofing to provide secure, conveniently
located cycle parking. B2 car park
should be designed as a cycle park (which will be its function for most of its
working life) and initially “retrofitted” as a car park. vi.
Staircases (for the car park and future cycle
park) must be designed for personal safety and to minimise anti-social
behaviour: open, with clear sight lines. vii.
Asked if the inter-floor ramps be adapted to a
shallower gradient. viii.
Challenged the use of the surface car park for
over-ranking taxis as a contractual arrangement. ix.
The taxi management plan would only apply in the
construction period, but the issues would continue after this period.
x.
Taxi’s waiting in the CB1 area was a wider
problem to the one presented.
i.
Resident Association representatives should be
included in any stakeholder’s consultation.
ii.
Welcomed the changes to the access to Devonshire
Road but would question if the kink in the cycleway was necessary. Required
clarity on level and surface transitions at pedestrian crossing and planning
condition for the Chisholm Trail branch to ensure it was protected
iii.
Pleased to note the proposed zebra crossing on
the Great Northern Road mini roundabout. However, it would be better to move
the crossing away from the corner of Sainsburys and for it be raised.
Alternatively, create a conventional side-road crossing arrangement. iv.
Tighter controls and timings were required on
the bin collections from F1and F2 across pavements and cycle path: questioned
if collection be co-ordinated.
v.
Two parking bays would be lost on Great Northern
Road, could not accommodate visitors or deliveries, vi.
Replanting of the trees on Great Northern Road
would take five years or more to start maturing, the current trees were just
starting to develop shielding noise and pollution which would be lost when
replaced. vii.
Needed to ensure no conflict on the cycle route
behind Station Square when food trucks were setting up or events taking
place. Ward Councillor Comments
i.
The height and mass of the B2 was still too
great which would dominate the Devonshire Road area.
ii.
A link was required between the B2 (cycle park)
accessible from the first and second level to the existing cycle park building.
iii.
The gradient of the cycle ramps needed to be
changed as there were too steep. iv.
The railway company may have an informal
arrangement concerning the taxi rank, but the reality was different. This had
been taking place for several years with the introduction of a CCTV system to enable
queuing taxis to see when the rank was clear.
v.
Queried if the proposed zebra crossing was on an
adopted road; where did the adoption finish and where did it become part of the
Station estate. vi.
Asked if there would be belisha beacons on the
proposed zebra crossing. There were no on the crossing outside the railway
station to station road and therefore had no legal status. vii.
Expressed
concern at the loss of landscaping originally proposed on the corner of the
Great Northern Road into the car park. viii.
Loss of blue badge parking needed to be
rectified and replaced. ix.
Agreed the community area behind the square
needed to clearly distinguish between public space and the cycle route.
x.
Asked how extensive the grey water storage was
in in B2. Case Officer
Comments
i.
Provided a timeline to the application: a)
18/1678/FUL submitted Nov 2028 following
extensive pre-app of 12 months. b) 18/1678/FUL
Planning Committee refused planning permission (two reasons, B2 – Aparthotel,
multi-storey car park and cycling infrastructure). c) Pre-application
in November, December, January, including member briefing (10 December 2020) d) Revised
application submitted 21 January 2021 e) Amendments
submitted on 5 May 2021 to address concerns raised. f) Applicant
confirmed they will not appeal the refused application. g) Development
Control Forum held on 16 June 2021 with further revisions shown and expect them
to be submitted formally. Further consultation will then be required
particularly with County Council Highway Officers.
ii.
Several Consultees responses had been received
and was summarised as follows: a) Urban
Design: No objections b) Environmental
Heath: No objections, proposed a condition and informative to include 25%
provision of electric vehicle charging points. c) Access
Officer: Originally objected. These objections have been addressed with the
revisions. Awaiting response from the officer. d) Drainage:
No objection. e) Nature
Conservation Officer: No objection. f) Landscaping
Officer: No objections but has raised minor details of the landscape design,
including external gardens to B2 AND F2 which had been addressed with the
revisions. Awaiting response from the officer. g) Sustainability
Officer: No objections, noted both building designed to achieve BREEAM
excellent and Grey water recycling proposed for the hotel. h) County
Local Highways: No objections. i) County
Transport: No objections. j) County
Local Lead Flood Authority: No objections. k) County
Cycling Officer: No objections. l) Cambridgeshire
Fire and Rescue: No objections. m) Cambridgeshire
Police: No objection. n) Anglia
Water: No objection o) Environment
Agency: No objection. p) Greater
Anglia: No objection q) Network
Rail: No objection, had confirmed the taxi ranking on the surface carpark was
an informal agreement.
iii.
Approximately 43 separate objections had been
received, many of the themes have been presented at the Development Control
Forum; these have been received from the following: a)
South Petersfield Residents: b)
Cambridge Past, Present and Future: Object to
the impact of B2 on the Conservation area and anywhere architecture. Requested
to go back to the Design and Conservation Panel. c)
CamCycle d)
Other third parties representations. Member Questions
and Comments
i.
Under LTN 1/20 cyclist should have priority; it
also referred to the disability act and therefore important to ensure that
people could enter and go through the buildings with ease and access to all the
spaces.
ii.
Reiterated that the loss of Blue Badge parking
spaces needed to be replaced.
iii.
Suggested that the height and mass of the B2
should be further reduced. iv.
The Applicant needed to consider the request to
change the gradient on the cycle ramps.
v.
Vehicles should not be permitted to use ‘rat
runs’ to the Station. vi.
Station Square required redesigning. vii.
Agreed the application was a great improvement. viii.
There were problems with the existing cycle park
and any new cycle park should learn from these issues. ix.
Questioned if the applicant had considered the
sustainability of the buildings.
x.
Noted the landscaping was greatly improved but
would urge the applicant to take this further and look not just at ground level
but what could be done at other levels. xi.
Planting should not be included that would need
to be taken up when work to the Chisolm Trail started. xii.
Needed to consider the effect of the increase in
cyclists using the Chisolm Trail, arriving via the guided bus route or the
cycle route to Babraham. xiii.
It was important to note there would also be an
increase in pedestrians arriving from the east west or South Cambridge Station.
xiv.
Asked if the application should go to the Design
and Conservation Panel. xv.
Queried how the Taxi Management Plan would be
enforced after construction had been completed. xvi.
Asked how many charging points would be in the
car park. xvii.
Enquired if it was possible to have a traffic
survey completed before the application went before the Planning Committee. In response the
Applicant / Agenda said the following:
i.
Had worked on the quality of the glazing and the
relationship between the glazing and non-glazing areas.
ii.
Had up graded the UV rating to meet the
BREEAM standard which would ensure no overheating of the building; the
fabric of the building had also been upgraded which would result in a
comfortable building for everyone that used it.
iii.
The applicant had recommended the access route
be installed straight down Station Road but City Council Officers or the
Highway Authority did not want this. iv.
An access route had been presented to the
Planning Committee from Station Road into Station Square, but the Committee
took a decision not to pursue that option.
v.
Under LTN 1/20 the application highlighted
pedestrian and cyclist priorities. There was a short stretch of road with four crossing
points. From north to the south through the whole development, the application
had provided a high quality cyclist route from Cater Bridge, Chisolm Trail,
Devonshire Road, crossing Station Road, Hills Road Bridge to Addenbrookes which
linked the Station entrance. vi.
The cycle routes on the application had been a
collaborative effort between City and County Officers, Cam Cycle, and the Chair
of South Petersfield Residents Association. vii.
The applicant would add a further £30,000 to the
£944,000 already contributed to the Chisolm Trail. viii.
B2 was well designed compact building close to a
brownfield site close which the application utilised. It was a simple and
elegant building against major infrastructure (Carter Bridge) next to the
railway and was suitable to its environment. The building was not in a
conservation area. ix.
There had been so many changes to the application
that officers were happy with and believed it was not necessary to go back to
the Design and Conservation Panel.
x.
It was always envisaged that there would be
buildings on the surface carpark, as stated in the CB1 Masterplan. The CCTV was introduced as a part of the S106
agreement for Station Square and the hotel. The use of the existing station
surface carpark for over ranking had always been an informal arrangement xi.
Greater Anglia had written to the Case Officer
to advise the use of the existing station surface carpark for the use of over
ranking was always an informal arrangement. xii.
A traffic survey been undertaken, and a summary
would be sent to the Case Officer. xiii.
Would provide the litre storage for the grey
water to Councillor Robertson outside of the meeting as did not have the
figures. The building had been
redesigned to meet the BREEAM standard which was why grey water could now be
included. xiv.
Would
ensure that the food vans and those who used the area behind Station Square
were aware that a clear passage had to be left for cyclists; would agree for a
condition to be placed on this space if necessary. xv.
The proposed zebra crossing would be on the
highway under private ownership of Greater Anglia and the Train Operator. xvi.
The car park would start with 25% passive
charging and within five years was likely to be 100%. In response to
Member’s comments the Case Officer said
the following:
i.
Supported the applicant’s comments regarding the
Design and Conservation Panel.
ii.
Was not sure how much the Panel could add to or
influence the design as application had gone before the Panel three times
previously.
iii.
There was a possibility that a condition could
be placed on the Chisholm Trail on the northern side of the access road into
the carpark. iv.
Unfortunate that the Chisolm Trail plans had not
developed sufficiently so that the application could be linked into it.
v.
Would speak with the applicant outside of the
meeting regarding planting across an area where these plants would need to be
removed when the construction of Chisolm Trail started. vi.
There was not yet a resolution as to who would
be responsible to manage those taxis who could not park on the rank. vii.
The application was for a multi-storey car park
and not for a cycle park. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent
i.
Thanked the petitioners.
ii.
Agreed that LTN 1/20 had changed the
application.
iii.
The application sat on a complex part of the
city. iv.
The site needed a building of quality.
v.
Offered a transition management plan to assist
with the change of the site. vi.
Fully understood the comments regarding the
longevity of some of the plants. vii.
F2 was not part of the refusal so had not been
amended apart but the route through to the north, crossing over the Great
Norther Road had been improved. viii.
If the Safety audit permitted moving the
proposed zebra crossing as proposed by the petitioner (moving the crossing away
from the corner of Sainsburys and closer to the desire line) this would be
done. ix.
The proposed zebra crossing would be designed to
be all safety standards and requirements.
x.
Would speak with the petitioners regarding
refuse collection outside of this meeting/ xi.
The developer was keen to continue working with
residents Summing up by the
Petitioners
i.
Thanked the applicant for their engagement.
ii.
Had expressed their opinion on B2 but it would
be the Planning Committee to determine whether the scale or mass was suitable
or not.
iii.
More detail on the taxi management plan was
required, it had to be determined who had long term responsibility. iv.
More detail was needed on the design of the car
park and clarity of on the future proofing.
v.
Design of the stairways should be improved to
negate anti-social behaviour and ensure user safety. vi.
Design of the proposed crossing needed to be
improved vii.
Need to ensure a clear path for cyclists behind
Station Square. Final Comments of
the Chair
i.
Summarised the main issues discussed.
ii.
Notes of the Development Control Forum would be
made available to the relevant parties and published on the City Council
website.
iii.
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. iv.
The Case Officer would contact the applicant/
agent after the meeting to discuss the outcome of the meeting and follow up any
actions, as necessary.
v.
The applicant would be encouraged to keep in
contact with the petitioners and seek their views on any proposed
amendments. |