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: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Introduction by Chair to the Forum Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. He stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|||||||
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
17/2157/FUL - 54-58 Chesterton Road Cambridge CB4 1EW Application No: 17/2157/FUL Site Address: 54-58 Chesterton Road Cambridge CB4 1EW Description: Demolition of former HSBC bank
building and redevelopment of site to provide 2no. ground
floor commercial units comprising Use Class A1 (shop), A2 (financial and
professional) - in the alternative, with 8no. apartments
cycle parking, and associated infrastructure Applicant: M Rickard Cats & Animal
Charity Agent: Saunders Boston
Architects Address: 119 Newmarket Road Cambridge
CB5 8HA Lead Petitioner: Resident
of Trafalgar Road Case Officer: Michael Hammond Text of Petition: The grounds for asking for a Forum on this
application are as follows: 1. That the scale and massing of the proposed new building is disproportionate to the two storey residential Victorian neighbourhood, especially within the De Freville Conservation Area. 2. It will dominate its immediate neighbours. 3. That the development will have a negative impact on transport, both pedestrian and vehicular in the road, increasing the likelihood of pedestrian accidents. 4. Residents are already fearful of using the road as cars regularly drive down the pavement. Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns? Yes 1. It is recognised that the site might benefit from development not least to remove the existing higgledy-piggledy building and turn it into something more in keeping with the Conservation Area and to provide additional family-orientated accommodation. 2. That the plan should keep the new building within the existing footprint of the bank building, allowing the car park to be either left as a car park or developed as an amenity. 3. That the roof line of the new building should not extend beyond the existing roof line of the bank. Minutes: Application No: 17/2157/FUL Site Address: 54-58 Chesterton Road Cambridge CB4 1EW Description: Demolition
of former HSBC bank building and redevelopment of site to provide 2no. ground floor commercial units comprising Use Class A1
(shop), A2 (financial and professional) - in the alternative, with 8no. apartments cycle parking, and associated infrastructure Applicant: M
Rickard Cats & Animal Charity Agent: Saunders Boston
Architects Address: 119 Newmarket Road Cambridge
CB5 8HA Lead Petitioner: Resident of Trafalgar Road Case
Officer: Michael
Hammond Text of Petition: The grounds for asking for a Forum on this
application are as follows: 1. That the scale and massing of the proposed new building is disproportionate to the two storey residential Victorian neighbourhood, especially within the De Freville Conservation Area. 2. It will dominate its immediate neighbours. 3. That the development will have a negative impact on transport, both pedestrian and vehicular in the road, increasing the likelihood of pedestrian accidents. 4. Residents are already fearful of using the road as cars regularly drive down the pavement. Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns? Yes 1. It is recognised that the site might benefit from development not least to remove the existing higgledy-piggledy building and turn it into something more in keeping with the Conservation Area and to provide additional family-orientated accommodation. 2. That the plan should keep the new building within the existing footprint of the bank building, allowing the car park to be either left as a car park or developed as an amenity. 3. That the roof line of the new building should not extend beyond the existing roof line of the bank. Case by Applicant Mr Green made the following points: 1) The
site was on Chesterton Road and was the former HSBC bank. 2) The
site had been in the ownership of the Owner since the 1950s and understood it
had been a bank since that time. 3) The
application had taken a long time, the applicants had used the pre-application
process and a lot of consultation had been undertaken with Planning Officers,
the public, the Police, Highways and Archaeologists. 4) The
scheme proposed the demolition of the existing building and a new building in
its place. The basement would be retained, there would
be retail on the ground floor and 1 bed and 2 bed flats upstairs in accordance
with the emerging local plan. 5) No
private space would be provided but the development was in a location with
amenity space close by ie: Midsummer Common. 6) The
context of the area was that there were large buildings at the front. 7) The
principles of development needed to address the significant corner and provide
frontages from Chesterton Road. The building diminished in scale to the rear
but provided active frontages onto Trafalgar Road with retail units at the
front. 8) Consultations
had been undertaken with highways who had said the development was acceptable.
The Planning Policy Team had said that the development was acceptable subject
to minor revisions on the application. 9) Further
work had been undertaken in relation to 2 and 2a Trafalgar Road. Daylight and
sunlight assessments had been carried out and it was considered that the BRE
guidance was met. 10) A
further shadow assessment had been carried out which showed a slight increase
in shadow at the equinox and summer solstice but considered this was not a
significant impact. 11)Proposed
a revision to overcome the overlooking issue by the provision of a Juliet
balcony and the removal of a window for flat 4. 12)This
was a contextually appropriate scheme generally supported by consultees.
Further works had been undertaken including sunlight and daylight assessments. Case by the
Petitioner The Petitioner spoke on behalf of residents and made the following
points: 13)
Had concerns regarding traffic
cutting through from Chesterton Road to Trafalgar Road to Victoria Road. 14)
A traffic review said that there
was no significant impact on highways but he did not understand this. 15)
Two shops were proposed as part of
the development which would further impact on the demand in the area and he was
not persuaded that deliveries for shops would use the lay by. 16)
Expressed concerns with bins and the
fact that these can get left in the middle of the road. 17)
He recorded the street for a week
between 5-8pm and this highlighted the number of times people parked vehicles
on the pavement and on both sides of the street which forced pedestrians to
walk in the middle of the road. Local feeling was that this issue was getting
worse. 18)
The overlooking issue would be
resolved if the window from flat 4 was removed. 19)
Had concerns about shadowing and
expressed concerns about how accurate the diagrams were. 20)
Had concerns about property 52
Chesterton Road and did not think that a sunlight assessment had been carried
out. There was also an issue regarding overlooking from the west elevation and
questioned the windows. 21)
Height creep in the area was an
issue. 22)
Referred to the Nelson Court
development which had received awards and looked good from the front but did
not look so good from the back. Case Officer’s
Comments: 23)
The application was received on 22
December 2017, 45 people were consulted and a site notice was published on 19
January 2018. 24)
Subsequent to this, 10
representations were received and objections were raised by Councillor
Sargeant. Objections related to: ·
the character, design and
appearance of the development, ·
the fact that the development was
out of scale with the surrounding area, ·
the lack of green amenity space, ·
the overbearing impact on
residential amenity, ·
noise disturbance if the
development was used for student accommodation, ·
concerns regarding access, fire
access and bin collections from Trafalgar Road, ·
highway
safety implications for pedestrians. 25)
Policy consultations had been
undertaken with statutory consultees. ·
Highways raised no objections ·
Environmental Health raised no
objections ·
Planning Policy had requested that
the description of the development was revised and subject to this had no
objections. ·
Urban Design was supportive
subject to amendments of the application. 26)
The Case Officer was waiting for amendments to be
submitted by the Applicant. A daylight and sunlight assessment had been
received and the case officer would be consulting with neighbours on this
assessment and all other amendments. Members’ Questions
and Comments: Members raised the
following questions: 27)
Expressed concerns about parking 28)
Asked what the net loss of parking
provision would be. 29)
Asked if 1 retail unit had been
considered as this would have less deliveries and less demand for parking. 30)
Questioned the size of the units
in the development. 31)
Questioned where the deliveries
for the retail units would park. 32)
Expressed concerns regarding
overlooking. 33)
Questioned what amenity space the
development provided. 34)
Asked if the Petitioner was aware
that the City Council had a maximum parking policy which included car free
developments. 35)
Questioned disabled access. 36)
Questioned whether front box
dormers were appropriate 37)
Questioned where refuse for
commercial units would be provided. The Applicant’s Agent and the Owner answered
as follows in response to Members questions: 38)
It was a car free development. As the development
comprised 1 and 2 bed flats they did not anticipate that residents would have
cars and bicycle parking provision was at the rear of the development. 39)
There was a separate bicycle and bin service area
for the retail units at the front. 40)
Currently there were 4 parking spaces and these
would be lost under the proposed development. 41)
The retail element had been kept small to be
attractive to a small business retailer. 42)
Wanted flexibility regarding the retail units these
could be 1 or 2 units, the market would decide on the size of the unit but the
current application was for 2 units.. 43)
Confirmed that the size of the units within the
development were in the spirit of the emerging local plans. 44)
Confirmed that the deliveries for the retail units
should use the lay-by. 45)
Proposed to replace dormer windows with 3 pitched
roof dormers but stated that Officers had not been provided with these
proposals yet. The overlooking issue would be resolved with the removal of the
window at flat 4. 46)
The 2 bed flats would have a terrace but the 1 bed
flats would not have any individual amenity space as it was considered there
was sufficient provision close by ie: at Midsummer
Common and Jesus Green and this was in line with other applications in the
City. 47)
Commented in relation to the overlooking issue that
frosted glass could be an option to address this. The Petitioner
answered as follows in response to Members questions: 48)
Had no problem with development but it needed to be
in keeping with the area. 49)
The development should stay within the existing
footprint. 50)
The development included 8 flats up, went up a
level and extended to the rear this raised concerns. 51)
The Nelson’s Court was meant to be residential
development but was part hotel this raised concerns regarding this development.
52)
There was a succession of taxis between 7-8am and
4-6pm which raised concerns. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent 53)
Commented that comparisons had
been made between the proposed development and Nelsons Court but this
development was different as the Owner was not proposing to make student or
part hotel accommodation. This was a long term plan by the Owner which was
evident by the larger size flats. 54)
This was a car free development
and the County Council had confirmed that parking permits would not be
provided. 55)
Could appreciate the existing
concerns regarding parking but the proposed development would not impact on the
area. 56)
Bin storage was in compliance with
policy. 57)
Had worked with Officers to modify
the scheme to respond to the concerns raised regarding the scale of the
development. Summing up by the
Petitioners 58)
Commented that the remit of the
development was to maximise return for the Owner. 59)
Bins were collected 5 days a week
and were left in the street. The earliest collection was at 5.18am in the
morning and this was immediately outside his window. 60)
Questioned if this was the right
development for the area. Final Comments of
the Chair 61)
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. |