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: Station Road
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: No declarations of
interest were made. |
|
Application and Petition Details 12/0502/FUL & 12/0496/CAC 32 - 38 Station Road Committee: Planning Committee Date: 4
July 2012 Application
No: 12/0502/FUL Site Address: 32 - 38 Station Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB1 2JH Description: The demolition of 32-38
Station Road and the construction of two new office buildings comprising 7806
sq.m. office floorspace (class B1) for 50 Station Road and 8621 sq.m. office
floorspace (class B1) and 271 sq.m. of retail/cafe and restaurant floorspace
(class A1/A3) for 60 Station Road as a phased development, including ancillary
accommodation/facilities with an additional single level basement to both
buildings and up to 61 car parking spaces, with associated plant; along with
the re-alignment of the northern section of the southern access road; 432
external cycle parking spaces; and hard and soft landscape (including
additional public realm and landscaping over the cycle storage area and
basement entrance) Applicant: Brookgate CB1 Limited Agent: Mrs Anna Rogers Address: Savills (L and P) Limited, 25 Finsbury
Circus, London, EC2M 7EE Telephone: 020 3320 8264 Application
No: 12/0496/CAC Site Address: 32 - 38 Station Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB1 2JH Description: Demolition of 32-38
Station Road Applicant: Mr Sven Topel Agent: Dr Jon Burgess Address: Beacon Planning Ltd, 7 Quy Court, Colliers
Lane, Stow-cum-Quy, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9AU Telephone: 01223 810990 Lead Petitioner: Mr Frank Gawthrop (on behalf of Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents
Association, plus the Residents
Associations in Highsett, Brooklands Avenue and Rustat Road) Address:
Glisson Road and
Tenison Road Area Residents Association, Cambridge Telephone: TBC Case
Officer: Mrs Sarah Dyer Text of Petition: Following discussion with members of Residents Associations close to
Cambridge Railway Station it was agreed to submit a petition to the City
Council regarding the proposed construction of twin office towers on Station
Road (in relation to planning applications 12/0502/FUL and 12/0496/CAC). One tower has eight floors, the other nine.
The development consists of approximately 16,000 sq. m of floor space with
estimated staff numbers of over 1,200 and just 61 parking spaces. Petitioners wished to express concern regarding the increase in office
space, the insufficient on site car parking, the environmental impact on the neighbourhood and the demolition of 32 -38 Station Road, which are fine
Victorian buildings listed as buildings of local interest. Petitioners wished
to discuss a reduction in the scale of the development. Petitioners wished to ensure that the development makes a full financial
contribution (including deferred payments) to the Cambridge guided bus. Minutes: Application and
Petition Details for (12/0502/FUL & 12/0496/CAC) (32
- 38 Station Road) Committee: Planning Committee Date: 4
July 2012 Application
No: 12/0502/FUL Site Address: 32 - 38 Station Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB1 2JH Description: The demolition of
32-38 Station Road and the construction of two new office buildings comprising
7806 sq.m. office floorspace (class B1) for 50 Station Road and 8621 sq.m.
office floorspace (class B1) and 271 sq.m. of retail/cafe and restaurant
floorspace (class A1/A3) for 60 Station Road as a phased development, including
ancillary accommodation/facilities with an additional single level basement to
both buildings and up to 61 car parking spaces, with associated plant; along
with the re-alignment of the northern section of the southern access road; 432
external cycle parking spaces; and hard and soft landscape (including
additional public realm and landscaping over the cycle storage area and
basement entrance) Applicant: Brookgate CB1 Limited Agent: Mrs Anna Rogers Application
No: 12/0496/CAC Site Address: 32 - 38 Station Road, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire, CB1 2JH Description: Demolition of 32-38
Station Road Applicant: Mr Sven Topel Agent: Dr Jon Burgess Lead Petitioner: Mr Frank Gawthrop (on behalf of Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents
Association, plus the Residents
Associations in Highsett, Brooklands Avenue and Rustat Road) Case
Officer: Mrs Sarah Dyer Text of Petition: Following discussion with members of Residents Associations close to
Cambridge Railway Station it was agreed to submit a petition to the City
Council regarding the proposed construction of twin office towers on Station
Road (in relation to planning applications 12/0502/FUL and 12/0496/CAC). One
tower has eight floors, the other nine. The development consists of
approximately 16,000 sq. m of floor space with estimated staff numbers of over
1,200 and just 61 parking spaces. Petitioners wished to express concern regarding the increase in office
space, the insufficient on site car parking, the environmental impact on the
neighbourhood and the demolition of 32 -38 Station Road, which are fine
Victorian buildings listed as buildings of local interest. Petitioners wished
to discuss a reduction in the scale of the development. Petitioners wished to ensure that the development makes a full financial
contribution (including deferred payments) to the Cambridge guided bus. Opening
Remarks by Chair The Chair
outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. He stated no
decisions would be taken at the meeting. Case by Applicant Mr Derbyshire made
the following points: 1)
Referred to Petitioner’s
concerns set out on the agenda. 2)
The aim was to create a
successful Master Plan in accordance with CABE guidance. 3)
The design complies with
the Master Plan. The 2008 Master Plan aimed to deliver key pieces of
infrastructure in different economic conditions. 4)
Each application should be
considered on its own merits under planning policy. 5)
The scheme does not require
a full Environmental Impact Assessment. 6)
It is understood that City
Officers were satisfied with bike and car parking provision. 7)
The design would expand
commercial office space compared to current provision, but others would be
reduced accordingly. 8)
The County Council was
satisfied with s106 contributions for SCAT and the Guided Bus. Dr Burgess made the
following points: 9)
Wilton Terrace buildings
have been in the Conservation Area since 1993. However their heritage status
has not changed since the Master Plan was approved. Wilton Terrace are
buildings of local interest, they are not listed buildings. 10)
The use of Wilton Terrace
buildings has changed from residential to other uses. 11)
The context around Wilton
Terrace buildings has changed since the adoption of the Master Plan; they are
now in an area of redevelopment. The Master Plan design has been discussed with
City Officers and English Heritage, who acknowledged the public benefit of the
design. 12)
Mr Sidor summarised the Master Plan details concerning
building design and layout and presented the scheme. Case by Petitioners Mr Crabtree spoke on behalf of local
residents. He made the following points: 13)
Concerns of Local
Residents: ·
The Master Plan
infrastructure was consistently being eroded in favour of more offices. ·
Car parking provision was
inadequate for staff and visitors. People would not be discouraged from
traveling to work by car through lack of parking provision on-site; they would
use local roads in residential areas. This would exacerbate existing parking issues. ·
Brookgate were requested to
investigate a pedestrian/cycle link from the application site to the adjoining
leisure centre multistory car park. This may ease Hills Road traffic issues. Professor Chisholm spoke on behalf of local residents.
He made the following points: 14)
The (full planning)
application design was materially different to that given outline consent. This
may lead to s106 triggers being missed and so defer payment of monies. 15)
It was suggested the Master
Plan should be revised to reflect the current application, and s106 agreement
be revised to prevent payment deferral if triggers were missed in the absence
of a new Master Plan. Mr Gawthrop spoke on behalf of local
residents. He made the following points: 16)
A concrete office block was
not a suitable replacement for Victorian buildings. 17)
The City Council undertook
an assessment of Station Road in 2004, which listed Wilton Terrace as buildings
of local interest. Beacon Planning again highlighted Wilton Terrace as
buildings of local interest in 2012, in their role as Planning Consultants for
the City Council. Mr Gawthrop expressed concern that Beacon Planning was now
acting as Consultants for this application, and queried if this led to a
conflict of interest. 18)
Suggested that Wilton
Terrace should be incorporated into the application design, not demolished to
make way for it. Demolition was not part of the Master Plan. 19)
Referred to a letter in
objection to the application from David Campbell-Bannerman (MEP). 20)
Referred to local resident
and Victorian Society representations concerning Wilton Terrace. Case Officer’s Comments: 21)
Details concerning the
application were sent to neighbouring properties. 22)
Subsequent
to this, representations were received from local residents requesting a Development
Control Forum. 23)
Policy
consultations have been undertaken with statutory consultees: ·
Cambridgeshire County
Council (Engineering) - No objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Head of Environmental
Services - No objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Cambridgeshire County
Council (Transport) – Satisfied with contributions. ·
Urban Design and
Conservation Team - No objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Senior Sustainability Officer
(Design and Construction) – Some concerns to be addressed. ·
Access Officer – Some
concerns to be addressed, but generally no objections raised. ·
Head of Streets and Open
Spaces (Landscape Team) – Some concerns to be addressed, but generally no
objections raised. ·
Head of Streets and Open
Spaces (Walking and Cycling Officer) – Some concerns to be addressed, but
generally no objections raised. ·
Head of Streets and Open
Spaces (Sustainable Drainage Officer) - No objections have been raised, subject
to conditions. ·
Head of Streets and Open
Spaces (Nature Conservation Officer) - No objections have been raised, subject
to conditions. ·
English Heritage - No
objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Victorian Society – Some
concerns to be addressed ·
Natural England - No
objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Environment Agency - No
objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Anglian Water - No
objections have been raised, subject to conditions. ·
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
(Architectural Liaison Officer) - No objections have been raised, subject to
conditions. ·
Design and Conservation
Panel (Meeting of 14 March 2012) – The Panel offered an overall Green verdict. Members’ Questions and Comments: The City Development Manager answered as follows
in response to Members’ questions and comments: 24)
An
application for a non-material amendment to the Southern Access Road would be
considered by Planning Committee 25 July 2012. 25)
The full
planning application was independent of the Master Plan. The Master Plan has no
status as planning guidance, but the Outline consent is a significant material
consideration. 26)
Wilton Terrace is in a
Conservation Area. 27)
A link bridge between the application
site and the adjoining leisure centre multistory car park was not required
under s106 Agreement. 28)
The application was not
bound by the outline permission. It will have its own s106 agreement that would
be separate to the 2010 s106 agreement that covered the entire CB1 site. The
2010 s106 agreement links individual parcels of land to infrastructure
provision as they come forward. The City Council received information 3 July
2012 from the County Council regarding on-going s106 discussions. The contributions
have just been agreed with the County Council, so information was not in the
public domain before the DCF occurred. 29)
The Design &
Conservation Panel met in March 2012 pre-submission of this application. Mr Derbyshire answered as
follows in response to Members’ questions and comments: 30)
The
Applicant was fully committed to paying SCATP and CGB full s106 contributions.
The Applicant would pay an equivalent proportion of the overall CB1 site s106
contribution set in 2008 for this application covering part of the site. This
would be paid on commencement of building construction. 31)
The
application met City Council parking provision standards as agreed with
Officers. The application sought to provide the minimum parking provision to
discourage car use as the site was accessible by other forms of transport. 32)
Brookgate
were liasing with the Surgery concerning relocation, but they had made their
own arrangements. Mr Sidor
answered as
follows in response to Members’ questions and comments: 33)
The design of the building
aimed to reflect other Cambridge facades. It was hard to define what an ‘iconic
building’ looks like. However, it reflected Master Plan criteria and could be
called a distinctive and exemplar building that reflected user and neighbour’s
needs. Summing up by the Applicant’s
Agent 34)
Re-iterated: ·
The Master
Plan had been worked on for 4 years, the planning application derived from
this. ·
City
Council Officers had been consulted regarding the application design. ·
The design
deliberately discouraged car parking on-site. ·
Car
parking and s106 obligations would be met, as agreed with Officers. ·
The
demolition of Wilton Terrace was included
in the Master Plan, the application was in an area of significant change and
the Terrace no longer suits this context. ·
The Applicant/Applicant’s
Agents were willing to liaise with residents outside of the meeting to address
any concerns. Summing up by the Petitioners 35)
Reiterated local resident’s felt the design
was bland in appearance, it should be smaller to be more in-keeping with other
Cambridge building styles, and to reflect resident’s needs. 36)
Reiterated concerns previously raised with regards
to: ·
A lack of on-site car parking provision would
have a knock on effect in neighbouring residential areas. ·
The design does not comply with the Master Plan criteria. ·
Concern that Wilton Terrace could be demolished instead of being kept as
part of the design. Final Comments of the Chair 37)
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. |