Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Link: Video recording of the meeting
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Green. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||
20/04826/FUL - Lockton House, Clarendon Road PDF 404 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning
permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of
Lockton House and 1&2 Brooklands Avenue and the replacement with two new buildings
comprising offices (Use Class E), flexible commercial space (Use Class E) to
include a cafe, underground parking and utilities, erection of covered
walkways, electricity substation, bin stores, access, cycle parking and
associated hard and soft landscaping. The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to
updated condition wording on the amendment sheet and revised recommendation
wording in his presentation: The recommendation is to APPROVE the
proposal subject to: · delegated authority for officers to complete the signing
of a S106 Agreement to secure the financial contribution for the Chisholm
Trail; · planning conditions as set out in the Officer’s report
and the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to
the application from a representative of Brooklands
Avenue and Area Residents' Association:
i.
There
was adequate space designated for office provision in the Local Plan 2018. This
site was not allocated for new office development in the Local Plan and lay
outside the Opportunity Area described under Policy 25. Therefore, this
proposal contravenes the Local Plan.
ii.
This
was overdevelopment on mainly residential narrow roads. Blocks A and B together
would have over three times the existing floor area of Lockton House. Block A
would extend south from Brooklands Avenue by around 40 metres, creating an
unacceptable loss of privacy and sense of enclosure for the remaining terrace,
which includes residential use.
iii.
Demolishing
1 and 2 Brooklands Avenue, opposite the Royal Albert Homes, to build Block A,
with large picture windows and a commercial café at ground floor level, would
destroy the integrity of a Victorian terrace, and prejudice its future. The
design, with an entrance wider than the bay window next door, was inappropriate
and damaged the character of the terrace. This terrace makes an important
visual contribution to the street scene. It should remain intact.
iv.
Unlike Lockton House,
which is placed side-on to Clarendon Road, the bulk of Block B would present
five storeys of excessive massing and scale on a wider frontage, with three
roof terraces. It would be built right up to the eastern and southern
boundaries and loom incongruously over the two storey houses opposite and next
to them. Replacement of Lockton House by Block A and B would fail to preserve
or enhance the Conservation Area. A screen of 42 mature evergreen trees at the
southern boundary would be lost. Both Blocks would overshadow and overlook
neighbouring properties having an adverse impact on residential amenity. These
buildings are out-of-scale and out of character for the Conservation Area and
harm the setting of the Grade II listed Royal Albert Homes.
v.
The
Design and Conservation Panel have twice given this an Amber verdict, meaning
significant changes are required. One member abstained, believing the case for
demolition of Lockton House had not been made. The Panel said the footprint
should be reduced, and Block B made less overbearing to Clarendon Road. To
quote from the October 2020 minutes: “the Panel believes the current proposal
is treading the boundary of overdevelopment and, indeed, may have strayed over
that boundary.” I think it has.
vi.
This
application would be overdevelopment due to inappropriate scale, height and
excessive massing. Both Blocks would have an adverse impact on neighbours’
living conditions, and would harm the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a Brooklands Avenue
resident:
i.
His house would be
damaged by this application.
ii.
If the application
were approved there would be an 11m high wall along his boundary rising to 14m
on the corner and then continuing back at that height for 30m to link with
Lockton House. It would feel like being at the end of a canyon.
iii.
The proposed
entrance to Lockton House next to his front door would create an access for 500
people and provide ground level views into his garden and from the corner of
the garden high level windows will provide intrusive views not only into No.3
but also the whole of the Conservation Area.
iv.
Expressed concern
that the development was occurring in a terrace, this was unacceptable whether
in a Conservation Area or not.
v.
Suggested that if
residents wished to extend their terrace properties to the extent of their
garden, permission would be (rightly) refused because of the overwhelming
damage to neighbours.
vi.
The rebuilding and extending of 1 and 2
Brooklands Avenue in this application had not been considered as work to the
terrace but only as an addition to Lockton House. The effect on its neighbours
was the most important aspect to consider which had not been done. Despite a
number of requests no planning officer has visited to see the effect. vii.
This application
would have a negative impact on 1-7 Brooklands Avenue which was an exceptional
terrace. The application openly stated that it intended to create a public
entrance to Lockton House within the terrace which is 100m away. viii.
There should be no
connection between Lockton House and Brooklands Avenue. Any application for
either should be quite separate.
ix.
Expressed concern
the application was an exercise in over development, building tight up to all
boundaries to triple the floorspace in order to make it economic to demolish
perfectly sound and valuable buildings to build more office space.
x.
This would destroy
the nature of 1 -7 Brooklands Avenue and overwhelm the Conservation Area.
xi.
If the Application
were granted the Conservation Area designation should be removed since this is
exactly what the proposal does. Mr Eaton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application through a written statement read by Committee Manager:
i.
Submitted a statement in opposition to
the development contrary to the officer’s report because: ·
The proposal would
harm the Conservation Area. ·
The negative impact on
the residential amenity. ·
There is significant
impact on tree cover.
ii.
Issues with respect to Conservation
Area: a.
Failed to enhance or preserve the
character of Conservation Area. It does not comply with Policies 55 and 61 (it
would dwarf the surrounding buildings, especially the terraced houses and would
treble the size of the current block). Significant negative impact on the “fine
group of buildings” (as The Conservation Appraisal states) that are 1-7
Brooklands Avenue. b.
Policy 60: the proposed height will be
21.2m and built significantly closer to surrounding roads and buildings. The
current building only reaches this height at a recessed sixth story, therefore
with a much lower impact than the proposed design. Members must take into
account the aspect as well as the absolute height. There are also roof terraces
on Block B. There would surely be significant issues with overlooking
surrounding buildings and residences. c.
There was already adequate space
designated for office provision in the Local Plan. Lockton House and 1 and 2
Brooklands Avenue are not identified as sites for office development within the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. Policy 25: ‘Cambridge Railway Station, Hills Road
Corridor to the City Centre Opportunity Area’ does not identify either Lockton
House or 1 and 2 Brooklands Avenue as Proposal Sites and these three buildings
are not shown within the ‘Opportunity Area.’ The current proposal for
over-intensive office development did not align with this.
iii.
Significant impact on residential
amenity: a.
Multiple planning documents misidentify
6 Brooklands Avenue as an office building. It is a residence, immediately north
of a 21.2m high building. The impact on daylight would undoubtedly be
significant, contrary to the officer’s report. b.
The 14metre high public walkway causes
significant privacy concerns for the residential dwellings that would be
immediately overlooked. Office workers can look directly into residents’
gardens and windows. c.
The impact on number 3 Brooklands
Avenue was devastating. d.
There have also been concerns raised
with respect to flooding: · Flooding
of basements to properties will get
worse: ( February 2021 Ramboll
Basement Impact Assessment report, reference 1620007220-RAM-XX-XX-XX-X-0003)
identified that although there would be a change in groundwater flow direction,
the changes in groundwater elevation would be in the region of a few
centimetres at the location of nearby existing basements”. · This
was likely to be significant given that these properties have had existing
issues with flooding, with knock on increases in insurance costs as well as the
direct risk.
iv.
Impact on tree cover: a.
The removal of the 42 mature leylandii
trees and the loss of other trees is contrary to Policy 71. b.
The justification of the removal of the
trees is that they are in poor condition. Questioned the point of the Tree
Preservation Order if subject trees can be removed due to the fact they have
not been sufficiently cared for.
v.
Environmental considerations: a.
The proposal is to demolish a
relatively recent building. b.
The developers have completely
misrepresented the concept of whole life carbon in their claims. Given that
embodied carbon in new buildings is around half the total of the whole life
impact (source: Material Economics report) then the new building would have to
have net-negative operational emissions in order to have the whole life
performance they claim. This is clearly not the case. c.
It was worth noting that the
calculation had been based on a 60-year design life which minimises the
annualised impact of embodied emissions associated with construction while the
developers propose knocking down a building far younger than 60 years. d.
In addition, a 60-year design life
means that the building would still be standing in the 2080s. It did not meet
net zero standards for 2050, and there is no firm commitment to meet that
target. e.
Furthermore, by presenting the impact
per occupant, the developers had flattered the calculation by dividing the
fixed costs over a far bigger site than the original. This was clearly not a
fair like-for-like comparison. f.
Members would recall concerns they
raised at the last planning meeting about the development on Hills Road, which
was subsequently rejected. That concerned a development demolishing older
buildings aiming for a BREEAM outstanding rating. This development is
demolishing a newer building far better suited to refurbishment and the
proposal targets a less efficient energy and carbon performance. Asked Members
to apply the same level of scrutiny to this development, as it did not meet
Net-Zero by 2050 targets. Councillor Jones (Ward County
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
As the local
County Councillor she strongly objected to the Lockton House and 1 & 2
Brooklands Avenue development on two
grounds: a.
poor quality
and inaccuracy of the submission and b.
cumulative
impact of traffic in the conservation area. ii.
She thought
it was clear from the ongoing significant errors and omissions in the
documentation that the developers had no knowledge of the site and the area.
The documents consistently contained errors about location, traffic flows and
nearby buildings, which suggested they were ‘cut and pasted’ from another
development. iii.
Talked with
the developers in October 2020 to raise issues about construction traffic,
increased traffic flows in the area and wider concerns about the cumulative
impact of motor traffic. Explained that severe disruption had required bollards
to be installed by the County Council to prevent
delivery lorries from blocking residents’ access. Was reassured that not only
were there to be fewer car parking spaces and more bike parking on site but
also that the ‘servicing’ and ‘deliveries’ required would be to a dedicated
delivery bay on Brooklands Avenue. The exception was only for ‘refuse
collection’ from Clarendon Road. The concerns Councillor Jones raised about
taxi traffic and drop-offs-pick-ups from the premises (and about construction
traffic access) therefore seemed to have been answered. a.
Having read the
report of the meeting between Councillor Jones and developers, the Vectos
report (and its subsequent updates), she found that her concerns about traffic
were fully justified. Deliveries were now planned for Clarendon Road as well as
Brooklands Avenue, with Vectos assessing this as a likely option for drivers.
All taxi pick-ups and drop-offs would move to Clarendon Road too. But with no
planned delivery bays or pick-up/drop-off bays the potential for congestion and
conflict will be significant. This was precisely what she and local residents
tried to avoid by getting bollards installed through our successful County
Local Highway Improvement scheme. b.
Clarendon Road and
surrounding streets are part of a Conservation Area already subject to
increasing traffic from large-scale nearby developments, yet it was assumed
that local pay and display space was available for employees on these streets.
Spaces in Clarendon and Fitzwilliam Roads have been over-subscribed in recent
(non-pandemic) years. It was also clear that, with 500 office jobs, this
residential area would experience traffic pressures. The Vectos report expected
people to drive to the site for meetings, since the report flagged “a maximum
stay of 8 hours, therefore suitable for employees’ and notes likely problems
with the “lack of two way working” on Clarendon Road. c.
Clarendon Road and
Brooklands Avenue were not built for heavy traffic, contrary to the Vectos
report. The application would exacerbate existing traffic noise, flow, parking
and pollution issues. iv.
To conclude: it seemed that the
developers have belatedly realised that the development would generate much
more car and lorry traffic than admitted and are altering their plans in an ad
hoc way. The Brooklands Avenue café would create more delivery pressures and
the deliberate shift of traffic to Clarendon Road will impose on this and
other Conservation Area streets in an unacceptable way. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
This application
was in fact two applications: a. demolition of Lockton House and 1&2 Brooklands
Avenue. b. replacement with two new buildings.
ii.
The current terrace
made an important visual contribution to the street scene.
iii.
Numbers 5 and 6
Clarendon Road were houses not offices. They would be particularly affected.
iv.
Suggested the
application did not meet Policies 55 and 61 of the Local Plan.
v.
Block B would loom
over the terrace.
vi.
Brookland Avenue
was already heavily used by pedestrians, cycles and vehicles. The application
would create a delivery bay for the site which would exacerbate traffic issues
in the area. vii.
Expressed safety
concern that the delivery bay was in the middle of the site pedestrian
entrance. There had been various accidents in the area over the last five
years. viii.
Did not agree
there was need for further office space in the city. Lockdown had shifted
demand from offices to home working.
ix.
It was not easy to
convert offices to housing if use permission were changed in future.
x.
The application
would adversely affect houses in the Clarendon Road Conservation Area. This
would lead to loss of amenity, light and privacy. Office blocks would overlook
nearby houses. Expressed concern about: a. out of character with the area; b. overbearing; c. massing; d. out of scale; e. over development of site. f. loss of trees that would be removed so application could
be built.
xi.
The footprint of
the application should be reduced. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments
to the Officer’s recommendation to:
i.
control the size
of heavy commercial vehicles delivery times;
ii.
investigate if a condition could be implemented to retain public access
by preventing the courtyard from being gated;
iii.
planters should remain on the
outside of the terrace area. The amendments were carried unanimously. Councillor Smart proposed an amendment
to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting maximum levels
of carbon reduction as outlined in the Sustainability Statement. This amendment was carried unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission
in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
Officer’s report, subject to: i.
formal determination this was not
Environmental Impact Assessment
development; ii.
the prior completion of an Agreement
under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated authority
granted to Officers to negotiate, secure and complete such an Agreement
on terms considered appropriate and necessary; iii.
the planning conditions set out in the
Officer’s report and amendment sheet; iv.
delegated authority to officers, in
consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the
following additional conditions: a.
requiring a service agreement to
control heavy commercial vehicle delivery times; b. the courtyard should remain publicly accessible; and c. planters should remain on the
outside of the terrace area in perpetuity;
v.
an informative
included on the planning permission: a.
requesting maximum levels of carbon reduction as per option 2 in the
Officer’s report (paragraph 8.93). |
||||||||||||||||
20/03843/FUL - Carlyle House, Carlyle Road PDF 206 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a single storey roof extension to create a third floor.
First, second and third floor rear extension. Refuse and secure cycle stores to
the rear boundary. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a Carlyle Road resident: i.
Firstly: Contradicting the
excellent work done and the impressive vision shown in both the Local Area Plan
and Mitcham’s Corner Framework: a.
The proposed building does not meet the requirements for any
new development to "create altered or new roof profiles that are
sympathetic to existing buildings and the surrounding area" which "do
not unacceptably overlook, overshadow, or visibly dominate neighbouring
properties." According to the Mitcham’s Corner Framework, "building
heights along the north western edge of the site “should reflect those of the
adjacent 1-17 Carlyle Road”. b.
Neither does it offer "coherent structures that
reinforce the unique quality of the area... through well-designed architecture,
developed in a sensitive and sustainable manner and built to the highest
quality". c.
It was of an inappropriate mass and scale and the development
exacerbated the impact of an already ugly office building. It certainly does
not protect and enhance the character of a Conservation Area right next to the
city centre. ii.
Secondly: The negative effect on
immediate neighbours: a.
The terrace opposite would lose light and be significantly
overshadowed, since the houses were 2.5 storeys high and this development will
be 4 storeys. b.
Loss of privacy because of the ‘bird’s eye view’ created by
the additional 4th ‘penthouse’ floor. The office building was often open
outside normal office hours and workers would have a clear view into
neighbour’s bedrooms. c.
The new rear extension overlooks/overshadows the Protected
Open Space at Grasmere Gardens' lawns. d.
Its scale will adversely affect the subsequent redevelopment
at Henry Giles House, where the aim is to be in sympathy with surrounding
rooflines. iii.
Thirdly: Negative environmental and
community impact: a.
The pandemic made it clear that fewer offices would be needed
in future, so this extra office space in a residential area was superfluous and
ill-located. b.
The development would reduce on-site parking and lead to
additional traffic, access and parking issues. c.
It would detract from a largely residential community
recently revitalised by a new play park and traffic pinch point, making the
area safer and more family friendly. d.
If the longer-term plan is to convert to residential use
under permitted development rights, the issues over mass and scaling, loss of
light and privacy, poor design, and adverse effects on the community would be
more urgent. iv.
Believed the planned proposal would constitute a kind
of ‘test case’ for whether the bold vision and high standards of the Local Area
Plan and Mitcham’s Corner Framework are adhered to in practice, and such a
large and ugly development, if approved, would potentially set a precedent for
a poor standard of design and build. Mr Hopwood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
Condition 15: Require
passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so the number or points
could potentially be increased in the future. ii.
Require details of the mast
location during construction. The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to restrict Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc). This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following
additional conditions: a. Condition
15: Require passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so they
could potentially be increased in future; b. Require
details of the mast location during construction; c. restrict
Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc). |
||||||||||||||||
20/01609/FUL - 25B Bishops Road PDF 183 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of two dwellings comprising
of 1No. 2-bed and 1No. 5-bed dwelling following the demolition of the existing
bungalow. The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to late
representations from 18 Bishops Road, 21 Bishops Road and 20 Exeter Close. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from an Exeter Close resident: i.
This plan would involve the loss
of a bungalow with disabled parking from the housing stock: this was raised by
the Access Officer at an early stage as a reason for rejecting the application.
Although the planned houses will conform to the required disabled access
regulations, the nearest parking for the proposed Plot 1 would be well over 100
metres away up a gravel and somewhat uneven track it was unrealistic to describe
the development as providing disabled
access, either for its residents or visitors. ii.
Objected to the over-development
of the site: to replace a 2-bedroom bungalow with two houses with 7 bedrooms in
a total ground area of less than 320 square metres means that the density is
well out of line with anything nearby in Bishops Road. iii.
This would increase the number of
traffic movements which would exacerbate traffic flow and parking issues in the
area. iv.
The increase in vehicle movements
will not only be due to cars but could also be due to van deliveries. Having a
greater number of residents on the 25B plot is likely to result in more van
deliveries along the track. This track is privately owned, narrow, and has a
corner in it. There is no provision for turning vans at or beyond the 25B plot,
so they have to reverse. Damage to roofing, gutters and fences has already
occurred; such damage will be more likely with more such vehicle movements. v.
If, in spite of these objections,
this application was approved: a.
Noted the revision on the plan in
the positioning of the Plot 1 house; this marginally improves the light loss to
a well-used room in Objector’s house and paved seating area. b.
The plan included the demolishing
of the brick wall (between Objector’s property and Plot 1). Was concerned about
the possible consequential structural damage to Objector’s main sewer (which
runs extremely close at the base of the wall) and to the foundations of their
house, which may also be affected by the digging of the deeper foundations to
the Plot 1 house. Understood that a ‘Party Wall Agreement’ would be needed, and
asked that (as a condition) a structural surveyor be appointed to assess these
and other potential damage issues. c.
During the demolition and building
phases, access to the site would be extremely difficult and there would need to
be limits on the length, width and height of site service vehicles. Access to
the site would cause great disruption both to those residents using the track
from Bishops Road and in Bishops Road itself, where it is likely that large
lorries would have to off-load onto smaller ones for access to the site. Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application through a written statement (read by Committee Manager): i.
Raised residents’ concerns around
the proposed work: a.
Density of the development was out
of keeping with the rest of the area – a 2 bed bungalow was being replaced by
two houses with a total of seven bedrooms. b.
The impact of this increase in
population on traffic and parking, particularly on a narrow private track
shared by residents. c.
There was particular concern
around emergency vehicle access from elderly residents. d.
Access for construction vehicles,
noting particular damage to buildings that had already occurred due to vehicle
access. e.
Safe access to Exeter Close from
the rear of the plot. ii.
Individual residents also raised
concerns about being overlooked and structural risks to their houses from
construction work very close by. iii.
The Access Officer recommended
refusal and residents echoed concerns about loss of accessible housing. iv.
If the Committee were minded to
approve the application, he would recommend inclusion of the following
conditions: a.
A restriction on the size of
vehicles allowed to access the site during construction, to a maximum of 2.3m
wide and 2.4m high. If larger vehicles are required they will have to access
the site via Exeter close. b.
A restriction on working hours
from 8am to 6pm given the unusually close proximity to residents, and the fact
that more people will be spending more time at home than in typical times. c.
A review, completed prior to
construction, of the safety implications and vehicle access requirements to the
site once construction is complete. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:
i.
to restrict construction vehicle size via the
Transport Management Plan; ii.
landscaping condition to include details of
measures to prevent car parking on plot 1. These amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to prevent use of flat roof other than for maintenance purposes. This amendment was carried
unanimously. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation with
the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional
conditions: a. to
restrict construction vehicle size via the Transport Management Plan; b. landscaping
condition to include details of measures to prevent car parking on plot 1; c. to
prevent use of flat roof other than for maintenance purposes;
iii.
include an informative on the
planning permission requesting a working fire prevention sprinkler system. |
||||||||||||||||
20/02504/S73 - Varsity Hotel and Spa, 24 Thompsons Lane PDF 116 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the removal of condition 2 (vehicle parking) of planning
permission 08/1610/FUL. Councillor Dryden (Ward
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application through a written statement read by Committee Manager: i.
Fire
safety and Pollution, if taxis are going into the hotel undercroft, they will
leave their engines running which may well pose a fire risk and cause more
pollution to staff in the covered area. The Planning Officer in his report
mentioned the Grenfell disaster with fire in mind. a.
The Planning Officer quoted the Fire Officer in
the application: “It is therefore my professional opinion that vehicles should
not be parked in the undercroft”. b.
So why a condition asking to put taxis in there? ii.
On a
practical level, most people who have ordered a taxi will be waiting outside
for it. Taxis will also not drive into the hotel to drop people off. a. To ask a taxi driver to leave the taxi outside, walk in to the hotel reception to ask for the gate to open, then drive in and navigate the undercroft, to then drive out again across a dropped pavement to either pick up or drop off does not make sense. It would also cause more potential collisions as the taxi crosses the pavement both in going in and coming out. iii.
The
Planning Officer’s report stated in 8.6 in relation to a previous appeal that
“…the 4.5m carriageway with footways on both sides was considered to be
‘sufficient to allow most small or medium sized commercial vehicles to load or
unload on the kerbside without causing undue difficulty”. a. A taxi picking a guest up or dropping a guest off outside is therefore fine. Why go against an Appeals Officer who has visited the site? iv.
Disabled
Valet Service made sense for the following reasons: a. Fire Risk: The access officer correctly understands the importance of the fire risk of vehicles within the hotel. b. Valet Parking: He also supports the provision of the ongoing offer from the applicant of a free Valet Parking service for disabled guests in the correspondence with the applicant and access officer and in the applicants existing travel plan. c. Convenience for Disabled Guests: Agreed with the Applicant that it was more disruptive for disabled guests to park their car outside, go into the hotel to ask for the gate to open, then navigate the undercroft in what is a tight area and park their car rather than have their car valet parked for them off site. v.
Supported
the removal of the disabled bay, conditioned by the offering of a free valet
service for disabled users. vi.
There
was no need to condition the taxi turning area. Councillor
Martinelli (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Residents were concerned about the traffic situation
in the area, which would be exacerbated by the hotel and valet service.
ii.
It was a good idea to retain the taxi drop off
facility.
iii.
Agreed with comments in the fire safety report. The Committee: The application was
deferred to seek further information from: i.
a
representative of the fire authority on whether the fire egress route was
affected by storage arrangements and more generally on fire safety matters
relevant to the application and ii.
a
highways officer concerning highway parking etc. More particularly Members
asked their officers invite those
officers to be available to provide professional advice when this item returns
to Committee for determination. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03838/FUL - 38 High Street, Chesterton PDF 189 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning
Committee as the Committee had
insufficient time to properly consider the application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/04303/S73 - 1 Grosvenor Court PDF 127 KB Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning
Committee as the Committee had
insufficient time to properly consider the application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/00190/FUL - 44 George Street PDF 158 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning
Committee as the Committee had
insufficient time to properly consider the application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/04824/FUL - 130 Queen Ediths Way PDF 177 KB Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning
Committee as the Committee had
insufficient time to properly consider the application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03704/FUL - Land adjacent 1 Lovers Walk PDF 192 KB Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning Committee as the
Committee had insufficient time to
properly consider the application. |