The site lies at the corner of Newmarket Road and River Lane. It is has been occupied since the 1950’s by a motor vehicle business.

The site is not allocated in the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), nor in the Cambridge Development Plan 2014 Draft Submission. It does however, lie within the area of the Eastern Gate SPD, and within the Eastern Gate Opportunity Area in the Draft Submission.

 

The site falls outside any conservation area, but the boundary of the Riverside section of Central Conservation Area runs along the western and northern boundaries of the site.

The applicants intend to come forward with proposals to remove all of the existing buildings on the site and to redevelop the site for student accommodation.

 

It is intended to re-develop the site in line with the Eastern Gate SPD in terms of the scale of the building and to provide in the region of 200 student rooms for occupation by students of one of the cities two universities together with recreation space and associated landscaping.

 

The current scheme has been developed following a previous refusal of planning permission at the site for the erection of new student housing (202 study bedrooms) and associated communal facilities, cycle parking, and external landscaping following demolition of the existing buildings.  The application (ref 14/1154/FUL) was refused at planning committee in May 2015.  The 6 reasons for refusal related to:

·        Height/massing and relationship with the Corner House public house.

·        Relationship and sense of dominance to River Lane properties.

·        Impact on properties on Godesdone Rd (sense of dominance and design)

·        Poor amenity for future occupants

·        Lack of occupancy restriction to students.

·        Lack of S106 contributions provision for open space, sports facilities and public art.

 

Since the refusal of planning permission, significant changes have been made to the design and layout of the scheme to address the previous concerns and the agents/applicants have also engaged with the local residents.

 

This briefing is intended for officers and the applicants/agents to update Members on progress to date and to discuss the key issues ahead of submission for a formal new application.

 

Attendees:

Councillors Blencowe, Hipkin, Johnson and Smart

 

Officers:

Lisa Lamb – Principal Planning Officer (Chair)

Lorraine Casey – Principal Planning Officer

 

Presenters:

Justin Bainton – Januarys (Planning Agent)

Paul O’Connell (Architect)

Christian Davis -  Three Sixty Developments

 

 

Declarations of Personal or Prejudicial Interest:

None

 

Introduction

 

The Chair explained the role and purpose of pre-application developer presentations to Councillors and the format of the meeting. She referred to the guidance contained in the agenda.  

 

Presentation by the Developer Team

 

Justin Bainton provided a brief summary of the proposal, which seeks to redevelop the site for student accommodation (195 bedrooms) and that the scheme has been developed since a previous proposal for student accommodation on the site was refused for 6 reasons. JB explained the agents are aiming to submit an application in December 2015.

 

Paul O’Connell provided an in-depth explanation of the current scheme and how it has been developed to respond to the previous reasons for refusal. A number of images were shown of the proposals including floor plans, elevations, perspectives, and viewpoints.  He referred to the site having two separate contexts – River Lane (2-storey domestic) and Newmarket Road (5-6 storey commercial). The proposed development is intended to act as a bridge in scale of the two contexts, and seeks to split up the mass of the building into two separate blocks. Compared to previous scheme, the building has been set further back from River Lane and reduced in scale to 2-storey adjacent to the western boundary. Proposals to provide a landscaped treatment to the Newmarket Road/River Lane corner are currently being developed.

 

POC explained, with regard to the neighbour amenity impacts, that the window positions are designed to prevent overlooking of adjacent dwellings. There is a minimum of 40m from first floor windows in the west elevation and rear of properties in Godestone Road and there are no gable windows directly adjacent the western boundary. A shadow study has been undertaken which purports to demonstrate the development would not give rise to unacceptable shading of adjacent dwellings. In terms of the amenities of occupiers, the current proposal includes increased bedroom widths compared to the previous scheme.

 

JB advised that, at this stage, the intended occupier of the development would be ARU. He also explained that the proposal was discussed at the Council’s Design and Conservation Panel on 7/10/15 and that the response was generally positive (6 amber and 2 greens). A management plan would be submitted as part of the application. It is intended the site would be managed 24 hours and there would be a designated community contact based on site.

 

Member questions and Developer responses

 

Cllr Hipkin – does the corner building contain student accommodation?

 

Paul O’Connell – confirmed not at ground floor, upper levels only

 

Cllr Johnson – Commended the work done on improving the concept compared to previous scheme but queried:

• Why no attempt to meet Eastern Gate SPD requirement to screen northern side of Newmarket Road. Can buildings be set back to enable additional planting and trees; and
• Can it be confirmed that rear windows on the western end of Newmarket Road building would not overlook Godestone Road properties?

 

POC/JB advised:

• Have thought about trying to meet SPD requirement but tight on space (particularly in view of pedestrian footpath requirements) and difficult to make it work whilst ensuring scheme would be viable. At D&CP, they felt a compromise/halfway house solution would be the worst approach to adopt.
• Confirmed no overlooking and that obscure glazing to be used.

 

Cllr Smart – considers River Lane boundary to be very important and commended the way it has been broken up. However, expressed concern regarding visual clutter of bins/bikes etc to River Lane frontage, and also queried if cycle storage provision is convenient enough to be used by residents.

 

POC responded by stating the scheme is designed so that pedestrians would access the site from Newmarket Road entrance, and cyclists from River Lane. The scheme has been developed in consultation with the Cycling and Walking Officer who expressed a preference for a concentrated storage solution rather than spreading cycle parking along the River Lane frontage. A wall along the River Lane frontage would conceal low-level clutter.

 

Cllr Hipkin – Queried who would occupy development and whether, if conditions would be imposed to restrict occupancy, whether this could potentially be lifted/varied at a later date.

 

Lisa Lamb – Confirmed any application would need to be considered against policies in force at the time. Occupation requirements would therefore currently be based on policies contained in the 2006 Local Plan. Impossible to advise if any future application to vary any applicable conditions/S106 agreement relating to occupancy would be acceptable as this would need to be assessed against relevant policies in force at the time.

 

Cllr Hipkin – Queried if the term ‘student’ could be defined within any consent.

 

Lisa Lamb – Advised policy being referred to here has not been adopted and reiterated that any application can only be assessed against relevant adopted policies at time of submission.

 

Cllr Johnson – Referred to previous scheme and that he objected at the time as he felt height related more to opposite side of Newmarket Road than buildings on this side. Can developers explain why the current scheme is more in keeping with the character of this side of the road?

 

POC – Advised that current proposal seeks to unite the 2 contexts of Newmarket Road and River Lane and to provide a transition in scale between the 2.

 

Cllr Hipkin – Expressed the view that Newmarket Road has a dual character – commercial 1 side and residential the other. He expressed the view that the proposed scheme is ‘heavy’ in appearance and reminiscent of commercial buildings in the area.

 

Lisa Lamb – Summarised the discussion and points raised. She thanked everyone for their contributions and for attending, and the meeting then closed.