Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe 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. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
17/2245/FUL- Mill Road Depot Application No: 17/2245/FUL Site Address: Mill Road Depot, Mill Road, Cambridge, CB1 2AZ Description: The erection of 184 dwellings (including 50%
affordable housing), 72sqm of floor-space consisting of Use Class A1 (Shop), A2
(Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Food and Drinks) or D1
(Non-Residential Institutions) - in the alternative, basement car park (101
spaces), surface water pumping station, open space (including play area),
alterations to the junction with Mill Road, together with associated external
works including cycle parking and landscaping. Applicant: Cambridge Investment Partnership Agent: Mr Andy Thompson Address: Beacon Planning, 8 Quy Court
Colliers Lane Stow-cum-Quy Cambridgeshire CB25 9AU Lead Petitioner: Resident
of Kingston Street Case Officer: Sav Patel Text of Petition: We object to building B_09, a tall 3 storey apartment building with ground floor retail space because of: -
Loss of
amenity (loss of privacy from 1st and 2nd floor windows: noise,
disturbance and nuisance from retail use within 5 meters of the existing
houses) to a number of houses not limited to 12-26 Kingston Street. -
Inappropriate
design (red brick in a conservation area). -
The
tall 3 storey design is out of scale with the rest of Kingston Mews which is 2
storey and directly contradicted by the applicant’s own design and access
statement which describes the development as ‘gently stepping up from 2 storey
on Kingston Mews to a 3 storey in the central portion of the site…’ and
specifically states ‘the mews houses are sited 3 metres away from the boundary
with Kingston Street to improve the relationship to the Kingston Street
boundaries’. -
We
consider that all the proposed buildings which will directly neighbour Kingston
Street, must maintain this design principle and therefore that the proposed
apartment building is inappropriate for this location. Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns? Yes. We consider that replacing the proposed apartment building B_09 with a 2 storey mews house of the same design and positioning as the rest of Kingston Mews, i.e. 3 metres from the boundary wall, constructed with Cambridge brick, would be an inappropriate compromise and would address our concerns. Minutes: Application No: 17/2245/FUL Site Address: Mill Road Depot, Mill Road, Cambridge, CB1 2AZ Description: The erection of 184 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), 72sqm of
floor-space consisting of Use Class A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional
Services), A3 (Food and Drinks) or D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) - in the
alternative, basement car park (101 spaces), surface water pumping station,
open space (including play area), alterations to the junction with Mill Road,
together with associated external works including cycle parking and
landscaping. Applicant: Cambridge Investment Partnership Agent: Mr Andy Thompson Address: Beacon Planning, 8 Quy Court
Colliers Lane Stow-cum-Quy Cambridgeshire CB25 9AU Lead Petitioner: Resident of Kingston Street Case
Officer: Sav
Patel Text of Petition: We object to building B_09, a tall 3 storey apartment building with ground floor retail space because of: -
Loss of
amenity (loss of privacy from 1st and 2nd floor windows:
noise, disturbance and nuisance from retail use within 5 meters of the existing
houses) to a number of houses not limited to 12-26 Kingston Street. -
Inappropriate
design (red brick in a conservation area). -
The tall
3 storey design is out of scale with the rest of Kingston Mews which is 2
storey and directly contradicted by the applicant’s own design and access
statement which describes the development as ‘gently stepping up from 2 storey
on Kingston Mews to a 3 storey in the central portion of the site…’ and
specifically states ‘the mews houses are sited 3 metres away from the boundary
with Kingston Street to improve the relationship to the Kingston Street
boundaries’. -
We
consider that all the proposed buildings which will directly neighbour Kingston
Street, must maintain this design principle and therefore that the proposed
apartment building is inappropriate for this location. Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns? Yes. We consider that replacing the proposed apartment building B_09 with a 2 storey mews house of the same design and positioning as the rest of Kingston Mews, i.e. 3 metres from the boundary wall, constructed with Cambridge brick, would be an appropriate compromise and would address our concerns. Case by Applicant David Digby and Max Kettenacker
made the following points: 1) The
application was for 184 dwellings with 50% affordable housing at social rent
which would be at 50-60% of market rents. 2) Public
exhibitions had been undertaken and the application was tested against planning
guidance. 3) Building
B09 marked the entrance to the site and was the first building on arrival from
Mill Road. The building was proposed to be a marker, this was why a 3-storey building
was proposed however the applicant was willing to make changes and consider
other ways to mark the entrance to the site. 4) Concerns
had been expressed regarding: noise, disturbance from the proposed use classes
on the application form, proximity of buildings to the boundary, the scale of
the building, overlooking from upper floors and the brick colour. 5) Proposed
changes to move the building back by 2.2m to create a passage way to give
access to upper buildings. 6) Proposed
changes to the scale of the building so that it would be 2 storey on Kingston
Street and 2 and a half storeys on other side with a pitched roof. 7) Pictures
had been provided by a resident of Kingston Street which helped to understand
the impact on the property of the proposed development. 8) Proposed
a reduction in the number of windows and that there would be no windows on the
North side. These previously may have
been oblique to mitigate overlooking but in the revised proposal the building
itself would be moved and the windows would be as far away as possible and a
privacy screen was proposed. 9) Summarised
the proposed changes to the application: a reduction of the height of the
building to 2 and a half storeys, the introduction of bedrooms into the roof
space. Retention of the two residential units but these would be smaller. The
space on the ground floor would be smaller and away from the boundary and to
internalise the bin store and introduce a residential buffer. Case by
Petitioners Petitioner A spoke on behalf of 66 local residents. She made the
following objections regarding building B09: 10)
The loss of amenity was not
limited to 14-26 Kingston Street 11)
Referred to the loss of privacy
from 1st and 2nd floor side windows 12)
The noise of the use of the new
building 13)
Inappropriate brick materials were
proposed 14)
Refuted the need for a statement
building based on the Applicant’s own Design and Access Statement. 15)
Pictures were out of scale, design
and massing with the Mews houses and with the development brief. 16)
An external bin store would create
noise disturbance, attract vermin and would be a security risk. 17)
The images showed the dominance of
the proposed building to existing houses but were not accurate in scale on the
pictures. The building to be no higher
than 2 storeys and set 3m back. 18)
Drew Councillors attention to
specific paragraphs within the development brief where the proposed development
did not meet the brief which included: ·
No need for a retail use as there
was adequate provision on Mill Road. ·
Community provision on site would
be too small to be of use to community groups. ·
There should be a tight 2 storey
edge, the applicant’s current application included a 3 storey, a reduction to
2.5m did not meet the brief. ·
Development would not meet BRE
sunlight requirements. ·
The positioning of Kingston Street
houses not shown accurately as they are too far from the boundary ·
Kingston Mews should be extended
by 1 mews unit to replace B09 and provide opportunity for public art ·
The current proposal for B09 was
not in scale. Petitioner
B made the following objections: 19)
He had a loft conversion and a
single storey extension which would be impacted by the revised proposal. 20)
If the boundary wall was moved,
better access could be provided to residents of Kingston Street with a safe and
secure communal gate at the end. 21)
He did not want any development built
on the land greater than 2 storeys in height. 22)
It was not appropriate to have a
commercial element within the development as Mill Road was so close. 23)
He was not against housing but
asked that any development was no higher than 2 storeys
in height. Case by Ward
Councillors Councillor Sinnott spoke as a Ward Councillor on behalf of local
residents. She made the following points: 24)
Questioned the rationale for a
2.2m distance and not a 3m distance. 25)
Questioned why building B09 was
only 2.2m 26)
Questioned the rationale behind
the use of materials and whether the materials for building B09 was the same as
other tall buildings on the site. Case Officer’s
Comments: 27)
Details regarding the application
were sent to 650 neighbours on 8 January 2018, 20 site notices were displayed
and a notice was put in the press. 28)
Received 38 representations and 36
objections. Whilst many were supportive of redevelopment of the site the
following issues/concerns were raised: ·
There was either too much or not
enough car parking provision ·
Increased traffic generation ·
Pressure on existing services
including schools and doctor surgeries ·
Questioned the commercial use
given the close proximity to Mill Road ·
Red brick was out of character in
the area ·
Lack of community provision ·
Would like more affordable housing
on site ·
Access to Chisholm Trail 29)
Policy consultations had been
undertaken with statutory consultees. ·
The County Council had objected in
relation to visibility and links to the Chisholm Trail from within the site. ·
Environmental Services raised
concerns about contamination. ·
The Drainage Engineer objected to
the drainage strategy on basis of it being the least sustainable and raised ground
water displacement concerns. ·
Anglian Water raised concerns
regarding the surface water strategy which could be dealt with by conditions. ·
Conservation raised concerns as
the scale of the apartment blocks and impact on the Conservation Area. ·
The Landscape Officer commented
that insufficient information had been provided. ·
Housing Officers were satisfied
with the mix and tenure of the development. ·
The Environment Agency had yet to
respond. ·
The Access Officer requested
changes. Members’ Questions
and Comments: Members raised the following questions: 30)
Queried the status of the
amendments the Applicant had made during the Forum 31)
Asked where the concept of a
retail unit on the ground floor had come from as there was retail on Mill Road. 32)
Asked why a large use class had
been applied for. 33)
Queried why there was a large
building at the end. 34)
Asked if public art or landscaping
had been considered in place of a marker building. 35)
Understood the need for a marker
and asked if brick had been considered. The Case Officer answered as follows in response to Members’ questions
and comments: 36)
The revisions provided by the Applicant were a
direct response to the concerns raised through the Development Control Forum,
the Planning Department had not received formal amendments to consider but if
submitted would be subject to a formal consultation. The Applicant’s Agent answered as follows in response to Members
questions: 37)
The concept of retail on the ground floor came from
a public consultation; there was no firm user agreed. 38)
Accepted that there could be a larger impact with
certain uses and would take this issue way to look at. 39)
The large building at the end was encouraged by the
Design and Conservation Panel to introduce a marker building. Accepted that the
marker building did not necessarily need to be in a greater scale and could be
achieved in a different way. 40)
Signage or public art had been raised by the
Petitioner and the Petitioner’s comments regarding a tree would be taken into
account. 41)
Would take the issue of the marker building away to
look at further. 42)
Commented that there were numerous red brick
buildings around the site. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent 43)
They would review the proposed
uses on the ground floor of B.09 building with the Case Officer and the Urban Design
Officer and would look at the marker building in light of the concerns from
residents. 44)
In relation to public art they
could consider whether a mural could be added. 45)
Commented that the design was a
work in progress and would try to work with the Petitioners concerns Summing up by the
Petitioners Petitioner
A reiterated: 46)
Her concerns regarding the statement
building and commented that retail use was not required as this was adequately
provided for on Mill Road. 47)
That the size of the community use
proposed would be too small for community groups to use. 48)
That red bricks reduced light and
the overall architecture in the area was gold brick. 49)
Expressed concern regarding
passages. 50)
Commented that the development was
meant to be an opportunity to improve the area and that the opportunity to
reduce the boundary wall should be taken. 51)
The revised proposal from the
Applicants did not meet the concerns raised by the Petitioners. Petitioner
B commented as follows: 52)
He would still object to the
revised proposals from the Applicants as the height of the proposals would
still significantly impact on him more than his neighbours due to his loft
conversion and extension. 53)
He had had to remove red brick. 54)
Commented on the parking issue for
Kingston Street residents from users of Mill Road. 55)
He was not happy with any
commercial building on the site. 56)
Commented that the boundary wall
needed to be removed as it would not be structurally sound. A passageway would
be better to provide access to gardens. Final Comments of
the Chair 57)
The Chair observed the following: ·
The application was a work in
progress and the points raised during the Forum would be taken away and looked
at. ·
Any amended plans would go out for
a 14 day consultation period. ·
Notes of the Development Control
Forum would be made available to relevant parties and published on the
Council’s website. ·
The application would be
considered by the Planning Committee and the Case Officer was working towards
taking the application to the 28th March Planning Committee. |