Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application No: 19/1350/LBC
Site Address: Public
Toilet Silver Street Cambridge Cambridgeshire
Description: Refurbishment of existing basement
toilets and associated works to include the provision of a new guard rail to the
basement stairs, and the erection of a replacement wheelchair accessible WC and
kiosk (following demolition of the existing wheelchair accessible WC
structure).
Applicant: Declan O
Halloran
Agent: Joseph
Mac Mahon
Address: 55
Leroy Street London SE1 4SN
Lead Petitioner: Resident of
Wilberforce Road
Case Officer: Phil Mcintosh
Text of Petition:
The grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
Policy 55. Responding to context.
Design & integration with the immediate locality
The new footprint extends the current solid build-line to the line of
the overhang canopy. The siting, massing, scale does not respond to the
context.
It is not well integrated with the immediate locality.
This design presented in isolation, lacks consideration of the public
realm gathering area as a whole. There is no rubbish bin plan, seating plan or
cycle rack plan. No restriction of advertising plan.
Policy 61: Conservation and enhancement of Cambridge’s historic
environment.
Silver Street bridge is a Grade 2 listed Heritage Asset. The new kiosk /disabled toilet building and
new railings do not enhance the significance of the setting and views. There
is inadequate detailed analysis of the asset and proposal.
Policy 59: Designing
landscape and the public realm |
The proposal requires substantial undercutting the canopy of the willow
tree to accommodate the height of the kiosk and water collecting tower. This harsh treatment of the tree is not
acceptable. The tree is important for biodiversity, providing shade and shelter
and is an existing feature that contributes positively to the quality and
character of the area.
Policy 63: Works to a heritage asset to
address climate change
The rain water capture scheme feature is unlikely to
function effectively under a tree canopy with leaf fall. The embodied energy costs of removing
and replacing the existing forged metal work railings are not
considered. The design and condition of the railings are not evaluated.
Trading
Is the new Kiosk an additional licensed retail unit or is replacing one
of the two existing units in this location?
We object to any additional licensed retail units in this location.
Do you think there are changes that could be made to overcome your
concerns?
Yes. If yes, please explain:
·
Retain the Willow tree canopy’s natural
shape, allowing for normal pruning.
·
The tree canopy should not be reduced by a
third to accommodate the extra height of the new kiosk / toilet. The design of
the roof tank should be modified instead.
·
Reduce the foot print of build line so it
does not extend into the busy pavement space area.
·
Evaluate condition & design of existing
railings and consider retaining them.
·
Present a public realm improvement plan
across the bridge area with a detailed analysis of the broader context. Views,
river setting, bins, benches, racks and signage.
·
We do
not object to the new Kiosk if one or both current kiosks on the bridge were
removed.
·
Please note - We do accept the principles of refurbishment
of the Public Toilets on and under
Silver Street Bridge.
Minutes:
Application
No: 19/1350/LBC
Site Address:
Public Toilet Silver Street
Cambridge Cambridgeshire
Description: Refurbishment of existing basement
toilets and associated works to include the provision of a new guard rail to
the basement stairs, and the erection of a replacement wheelchair accessible WC
and kiosk (following demolition of the existing wheelchair accessible WC
structure).
Applicant: Declan O Halloran
Agent: Joseph
Mac Mahon
Address: 55
Leroy Street London SE1 4SN
Lead Petitioner: Resident of Wilberforce Road
Case Officer: Phil
Mcintosh
Text of Petition:
The grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
Policy 55. Responding to context.
Design & integration with the immediate locality
The new footprint extends the current solid build-line to the line of
the overhang canopy. The siting, massing, scale does not respond to the
context.
It is not well integrated with the immediate locality.
This design presented in isolation, lacks consideration of the public
realm gathering area as a whole. There is no rubbish
bin plan, seating plan or cycle rack plan. No restriction of advertising
plan.
Policy 61: Conservation and enhancement of Cambridge’s historic
environment.
Silver Street bridge is a Grade 2 listed Heritage Asset. The new kiosk /disabled toilet building and new railings do not enhance the significance of
the setting and views. There is inadequate detailed analysis of the
asset and proposal.
Policy 59: Designing landscape and the public realm |
The proposal requires substantial undercutting the canopy of the willow tree
to accommodate the height of the kiosk and water collecting tower. This harsh treatment of the tree is not
acceptable. The tree is important for biodiversity, providing shade and shelter
and is an existing feature that contributes positively to the quality and
character of the area.
Policy 63: Works to a heritage asset to
address climate change
The rain water capture scheme feature is
unlikely to function effectively under a tree canopy with leaf fall. The embodied energy costs of removing
and replacing the existing forged metal work railings are not
considered. The design and condition of the railings are not evaluated.
Trading
Is the new Kiosk an additional licensed retail unit or is replacing one
of the two existing units in this location?
We object to any additional licensed retail units in this location.
Do you think there are changes that could be made to overcome your
concerns?
Yes. If yes, please explain:
· Retain
the Willow tree canopy’s natural shape, allowing for normal pruning.
· The tree
canopy should not be reduced by a third to accommodate the extra height of the
new kiosk / toilet. The design of the roof tank should be modified instead.
· Reduce
the foot print of build line so it does not extend
into the busy pavement space area.
· Evaluate
condition & design of existing railings and consider retaining them.
· Present
a public realm improvement plan across the bridge area with a detailed analysis
of the broader context. Views, river setting, bins, benches, racks and signage.
· We do not object to the new Kiosk if one or
both current kiosks on the bridge were removed.
· Please
note - We do accept the principles of refurbishment of the Public Toilets on
and under Silver Street Bridge.
Case by Applicant
1) The
Applicant was concerned about the heritage and how the development would sit
within the existing location. The concept was to create a special building on
Silver Street.
2) It
had taken 3 and a half years to be able to get to the current position.
3) The
footprint of the proposed building was smaller than the existing building; the
scale and footprint had been carefully considered. The footprint would not come
infront of the existing over hang of the building.
4) The
design of the toilets responded to the angled building of Darwin College
library and the Willow trees behind the toilets.
5) Wanted
to open up the area which currently had a dark
appearance.
6) Commented
that the proposed building had a green tone but this
could be changed to a warmer tone to match the bricks at Darwin College.
7) The
building design did not preclude possible locations for other public realm
elements such as bins and benches, but this was not part of the current application.
8) A
smaller footprint was considered to give something back to the public realm.
9) The
willow trees were fantastic assets but one of the willow trees had collapsed in
August 2019 and had to be pollarded and replaced.
10) Noted
that the railings were built as part of the last development of the Silver
Street toilets in 1985.
11) The
public toilets needed to be robust to withstand vandalism and be as sustainable
as possible.
12) There
is a kiosk within the building but there is no contract currently in place for
a tenant although there has been interest expressed from Visit Cambridge and
Beyond in occupying the space.
Case by
Petitioners
1) Stated that the Friends of
Queens Green Group comprised members of colleges as well as local
residents.
2) Commented that there had not
been much public consultation on this application.
3) Was pleased that the Making
Space for People, Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had been mentioned.
4) Was aware that this application
was in an area of high importance.
5) The willow trees were an
essential aspect for increasing biodiversity. The importance of the river spoke
for itself.
6) Silver Street Bridge was an
access point which could be enhanced.
7) Was aware of the pressure of
tourism and this area needed to be good enough.
8) Not being able to look at this
area as a whole was an issue.
9) Noted that the context of the
application was subjective but appreciated the Applicants talking the
Petitioners through the application.
10) The last building to have been
built on Silver Street was the Porters Lodge and this was very sympathetically
designed.
11) Silver Street bridge had been
appropriated by businesses.
12) Two matters were being proposed
which would impact on heritage a) the toilets and b) a kiosk, there had been no
analysis undertaken to show how the kiosk would impact on the surrounding area.
13) Questioned if the benefits of
the development outweighed the harm.
Noted that there were benefits and negatives arising from this
application for example this application could potentially add a lot more
people (congestion) into the area.
14) The application was for a
special building which must respond to the ambitions for a sustainable future.
15) Although the willow trees were
due to be pruned, they provide a significant habitat, noted that the Design and
Access Statement talked about how bugs etc would inhabit the new building.
16) Significant modification and
maintenance would be required to maintain the trees as proposed.
17)The willow trees were an
indicator for the river which would be lost as a result of the
development. The trees required space to
mature.
18)Questioned how effective the
water tank would be. There needed to be much more detail about how water was
going to be used more efficiently. Also questioned that given so much habitat
was being sacrificed was it really worth it.
19)Silver Street bridge was a
grade II listed building and was a key gateway into the historic city and was a
key component of the public realm.
20) The petitioners showed the
committee a picture taken in 2012 when the area was clear of bins, signs,
parked cars and businesses and stated that without consideration of the public
realm the council had a duty to consider the impact on the Conservation Area as
incremental changes had taken place.
21)Silver Street bridge was deeply
congested all year round and with so much street furniture it was a safety
concern for a number of pedestrians. The pedestrian crossing was originally
introduced because of a fatality in the area.
22)The issue regarding the
building line was to do with the canopy which was not a solid build line. This
decreased the available prominent width to the road and the ability to see safely
around the corner
23)Commented that the Head of
Cambridge University Disability Resources Centre no longer felt able to direct
disabled students across Silver Street bridge; this was largely to do with the
number of pedestrians using the access and possibly pushing people onto the
road.
24)Corrected a typographical error
in the presentation which said that the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) -
Making Space for People was drafted in 2009, this should have read 2019.
25)Believed in the principle ‘do
no harm’, or that any harm resulting from the development be minimal.
26)The subterranean development
was necessary and of public benefit but the development above ground which
reduced the size of the pavement did not benefit users; this was an opportunity
to consider this area in a holistic way.
27) Summarised their points:
a) ‘no public harm’ was not a good enough
justification for the application
b) there should be a special strategy to
consider special considerations
c) the footprint was small
but the positioning of the development was strange
d) suggested deferring the application for
further consideration and consultation.
Case Officer’s
Comments:
1) Two
applications had been submitted, the full planning application 19/1167/FUL was
submitted on 21 August 2019 and a listed building consent 19/1350/LBC was
submitted on 30 September 2019; both applications had complied with the
requisite consultation requirements.
2) Two
representations had been received in addition to the petitioners’ response, one
as an objection and the other as a neutral response.
3) The
objection response commented that public convenience provision was inadequate
for the 8.1 million annual visitors.
Also commented that subterranean provision was discriminatory for those
who were unable to manage the underground access. The refurbishment of the
toilets just tinkered at the edges.
4) The neutral
response noted that the use of the Silver Street bridge by all types of users
had increased since the existing toilet structure was built. Congestion was
exacerbated by trade stalls and punt businesses and increasingly safety seemed
to be an issue. It was desirable to reclaim as much of the pavement circulation
space as possible for safety reasons. The proposed gap between the new pavilion
and the turnstiles did not appear to serve any purpose. If this were eliminated
and the turnstiles made to stand against the pavilion this would widen the
footpath on the road side. The consideration of nearby
street furniture and permitted locations of trader stalls may also help improve
circulation and safety.
5) Historic
England said the application would not cause harm to the Conservation Area and
the scale, massing and design would enhance the area.
6) The
Conservation Officer said subject to conditions there would be no adverse
impact on the listed buildings, their settings or the Conservation Area.
7) The
Highways Authority had raised no objections but asked for conditions regarding
delivery times, and the submission of a traffic management plan.
8) The
Streets and Open Spaces Team raised no concerns and commented that works to the
trees would be carried out for arboricultural reasons
irrespective of whether the development went ahead.
9) The
Access Officer commented that a changing places standard toilet was needed and
both left and right hand transfer wheelchair
accessible toilets were needed with toilet doors opening outwards. Squat
toilets were not suitable.
10) The
Disability Panel were disappointed with the lack of changing places toilet
provision.
11) Environmental
Health had no objections but suggested conditions to do with construction
hours.
12) Cambridge
Past Present and Future had raised no objections but made the following
comments, sought assurance that the waste and drainage consultees had been
satisfied. The variety of toilets was interesting but was unclear whether there
was a need for these. The area was already cluttered and sought the Making
Space for People SPD to address the area to improve the public realm.
13) The
Environment Agency raised no objections subject to flood resilience set out in
the flood risk assessment.
Case by Ward
Councillor
Councillor Cantrill spoke as a Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents. He made the following points:
1) There
were three issues a) functionality b) flow of individuals / people movement and
c) form.
2) This
was a very important site contextually, the functionality of the building and
the toilets in the subterranean part of the proposal is critical for visitors
and residents.
3) The
current toilets had an inability to perform the function it needed to perform,
and the disabled access was continually having to be repaired because of vandalism.
4) A
significant amount of money was being invested and the development needed to
have a significant life span.
5) The
flow of people on Silver Street had a big mixture of different types of
movement. There was a significant
tourist movement but also significant commuter traffic which lead to
significant numbers of people on both sides of the street and people crossing
the road.
6) This
was a very important proposal as it formed a key component of the public space
and whilst the proposal only moved the footprint of the development a small
amount this still had a significant impact. This was a major missed opportunity
given it did not look at the extensive public space of which it forms a part.
7) This
structure predated the Darwin College Library which had been built in the mid 90s.
8) The
building had been reversed engineered, form was
important in terms of functionality. Instead of this being a jewel it will be
tarnished.
9) This
building needed to be robust enough to last for the next 30 to 40 years.
10) Once
there has been consultation about the location, there should be a pause to
consider the issues raised in the petition.
Case by Executive
Councillor
Councillor Moore spoke as the Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre. She made the following points:
1) Although
interlinked could not expect the planning application plans for the toilets to
resolve the issues of congestion in the area.
2) They
were trying to control the number of coaches dropping off in the area but this was an issue with the County Council. She
wanted the coaches to book in advance for drop off and pick up of customers,
this was also why it was desirable for Visit Cambridge to be
located in the new kiosk rather than a company for example selling ice
creams.
3) Understood
that it would be nice to try and resolve all the outstanding issues in one go
however the toilets really needed updating now, the other solution would be to
close the toilets.
4) Thanked
the architect for the work which had been put into the planning application,
wanted to get the best design and had taken careful notes about the bins and
the traders but it was not something that could be considered as part of the
planning application.
Members’ Questions
and Comments:
The Applicant made the following comments in response to Members’
questions
1) They had
spent considerable time observing how people used the area. There was a key
desire line across the zebra crossing and there was also a constraint with the
Thames Water sewer line. There was a desire to replace the footprint of the
building to allow access to the subterranean level without having to go all the
way around the building and also avoid creating a dead
end. Could consider a slight change with the position of the building but the
closer you got to the railings the closer you got to the trees.
2) He had
spoken about the trees and it had been taken as a given not to extend beyond
the existing building line.
3) He
acknowledged that it was a good point that there wasn't a lot of rainfall but the water tank was a gesture towards
sustainability.
4) The building
needed to be robust and resilient for the next 20 to 30 years.
5) It was
difficult to get light in the subterranean toilets because of the listed
structure of the bridge.
6) The
top structure was not essential in terms of providing water for functioning toilets
but was integral to the overall design philosophy and in terms of enhancing
sustainability credentials, through rainwater capture, had been developed
following discussions with Councillors and Ward Councillors at the Environment
and Community Scrutiny Committee. He would take on board the comments about
grey water recycling. If they removed the water tank from the design this would
preclude rainwater harvesting.
7) One of
the Willow trees had failed but this was due to be replaced.
The Petitioners made the following comments in response to Members’
questions:
1) Would
welcome some movement to the proposed location of the toilets as the current
structure had limitations however their concerns were not just about how far
forward the building was but also about the proposed kiosk as this would mean
that more tourists would stop there, block the pavement and caused congestion.
2) There
was a risk that the project had been reverse engineered.
3) The
nature of willow trees was that the more you pruned them the more they grew.
4) At night time the space behind the toilets was used for crime
for example drug dealing.
Summing up by the
Agent
1) Would
take forward robustness to how specify and design the building.
2) Noted
questions which had been raised over form, agreed it was a special building and
would do all he could to take forward.
3) The
extra height of the building was not a retrofit idea the height came before the
fit of the water tank.
4) Would look
at the location of the building in relation to constraints.
5) Thought
linking the alley to the turnstiles would make it more of a dead end down to
the river.
6) Would
look at the water strategy and grey water harvesting and would be happy to
accept a condition if could come up with a credible solution.
7) Was
willing to share samples of materials with the petitioners.
8) The
city needed toilets and would be a modest construction.
Summing up Petitioners
1) It was
important to consider the safety and functionality of the space beyond the
toilets for students, residents and communities.
2) The
location was dark even when the trees would be pollarded.
3) Notion
of kiosk just wondered if there was an alternative way of informing the public
for example online or using QR codes.
4) Raised
the issue of the impact of tourism and questioned who the development was for.
Final Comments of
the Chair
1) Summarised
the main issues discussed:
a) siting
of building and whether there was scope to reposition
b) the
street scene and the building in context
c) comparative
footprint based on canopy line rather than wall line
d) the
inclusion of the kiosk and the impact of this
e) robustness
of the building design and whether the building would be fit for purpose
f) choice
of materials
g) Impact
on the Willow trees although noted plans to pollard the trees in any event
h) water
collection point on the roof and the efficiency of this and needs to see
details of grey water harvesting and noted that the applicants would be happy
to accept conditions
i) petitioners
expressed concerns about the design of the railings and the agent said would be
picked up.
2) Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties.
3) Application
to be considered at a future Planning Committee.
Supporting documents: