A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application ref: 21/03609/FUL
Site Address: National Institute Of
Agricultural Botany Huntingdon Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB3 0LE
Description: Retention of
the former NIAB Headquarters building, the demolition of all other buildings
and structures, and the erection of buildings with basements for 291 Build to
Rent units (Use Class C3) including affordable housing and a 202 bed
Apart-Hotel (Sui Generis) and associated facilities along with access, car and
cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.
Agent: Peter
Mckeown
Address: One
Station Square Cambridge CB1 2GA
Lead Petitioner: Resident
of Howes Place
Case
Officer: Rebecca Ward
Text of Petition:
The grounds for asking for a Forum on this
application are as follows:
• HARM to the context of the local
heritage asset of Howes Place and the amenity of existing residents through the
overbearing massing and height of the proposed development and location of a
micro-brewery and bar alongside local the heritage asset.
• HARM to specific elements of the built
and landscape heritage assets. This harm would arise from proposals for the
selective demolition of two houses at Nos. 14 and 15 Howes Place and felling of
at least ten (10) pleached limes trees which are protected under TPO 10/1991.
These houses and trees are essential parts of the built environment and the
landscape setting of the local heritage asset.
• HARM to the setting of the local
heritage asset by making Howes Place the back yard of the proposed development
for commercial vehicles, drops-offs and pick-ups and cut through for
pedestrians and cyclists, including electric cycle and scooter traffic,
transitioning to and from the development and parts of Darwin Green to the city
centre. Noting that Howes Place is a private, unadopted, unlit and narrow
access. This imposes unnecessary harm to the setting as the development site is
already served by purpose-built footpaths and cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver
Road and a traffic light controlled junction with
Huntingdon Road.
• HARM to the health and well-being of
existing neighbouring residents and future residents of the proposed
development through the under provision and inappropriate provision of amenity
space within the proposed development.
• Proposed under provision of 'Affordable
Private Rent' dwellings.
• Proposed under provision of parking
spaces for residents, visitors to the Apart-Hotel and employees of the
Apart-Hotel, retail units, cafe, micro-brewery and bar
and building maintenance contractors.
Do you think there are changes that could be
made to overcome your concerns?
Yes
• Significant reduction in the massing and
height of the proposed development and removal of the micro-brewery and bar
from the proposed development.
• Retention of Nos.14 and 15 Howes Place
and all of the pleached limes trees which are
protected under TPO 10/1991 with sympathetic integration of these built and
landscape heritage assets into the proposed development.
• Removal of any points of access from
Howes Place to the proposed development to ensure that all vehicle, pedestrian
and cycle access to the proposed development is from the purpose-built
roadways, footpaths and cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver Road and the traffic light controlled junction between Lawrence Weaver Road and
Huntingdon Road.
• Provision of appropriate amenity space
within the proposed development in terms of scale, location
and accessibility.
• Provision of the minimum of 20%
'Affordable Private Rent' dwellings in the proposed Build to Rent development.
• Provision of sufficient parking spaces
for residents, visitors to the Apart-Hotel and employees of the Apart-Hotel,
retail units, cafe, micro-brewery and bar and building
maintenance contractors.
Minutes:
Application
ref: 21/03609/FUL
Site
Address: National Institute Of Agricultural Botany Huntingdon Road
Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB3 0LE
Description: Retention of the former NIAB Headquarters
building, the demolition of all other buildings and structures, and the
erection of buildings with basements for 291 Build to Rent units (Use Class C3)
including affordable housing and a 202 bed Apart-Hotel (Sui Generis) and
associated facilities along with access, car and cycle parking, landscaping and
infrastructure works.
Agent: Peter
Mckeown
Address: One
Station Square Cambridge CB1 2GA
Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Howes Place
Case Officer: Rebecca
Ward
Text of Petition:
The grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:
• HARM to the context of the local heritage asset of Howes Place and the amenity of existing residents through the overbearing massing and height of the proposed development and location of a micro-brewery and bar alongside local the heritage asset.
• HARM to specific elements of the built and landscape heritage assets. This harm would arise from proposals for the selective demolition of two houses at Nos. 14 and 15 Howes Place and felling of at least ten (10) pleached limes trees which are protected under TPO 10/1991. These houses and trees are essential parts of the built environment and the landscape setting of the local heritage asset.
• HARM to the setting of the local heritage asset by making Howes Place the back yard of the proposed development for commercial vehicles, drops-offs and pick-ups and cut through for pedestrians and cyclists, including electric cycle and scooter traffic, transitioning to and from the development and parts of Darwin Green to the city centre. Noting that Howes Place is a private, unadopted, unlit and narrow access. This imposes unnecessary harm to the setting as the development site is already served by purpose-built footpaths and cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver Road and a traffic light controlled junction with Huntingdon Road.
• HARM to the health and well-being of existing neighbouring residents and future residents of the proposed development through the under provision and inappropriate provision of amenity space within the proposed development.
• Proposed under provision of 'Affordable Private Rent' dwellings.
• Proposed under provision of parking spaces for residents, visitors to the Apart-Hotel and employees of the Apart-Hotel, retail units, cafe, micro-brewery and bar and building maintenance contractors.
Do you think there are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns?
Yes
• Significant reduction in the massing and height of the proposed development and removal of the micro-brewery and bar from the proposed development.
• Retention of Nos.14 and 15 Howes Place and all of the pleached limes trees which are protected under TPO 10/1991 with sympathetic integration of these built and landscape heritage assets into the proposed development.
• Removal of any points of access from Howes Place to the proposed development to ensure that all vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed development is from the purpose-built roadways, footpaths and cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver Road and the traffic light controlled junction between Lawrence Weaver Road and Huntingdon Road.
• Provision of appropriate amenity space within the proposed development in terms of scale, location and accessibility.
• Provision of the minimum of 20% 'Affordable Private Rent' dwellings in the proposed Build to Rent development.
• Provision of sufficient parking spaces for residents, visitors to the Apart-Hotel and employees of the Apart-Hotel, retail units, cafe, micro-brewery and bar and building maintenance contractors.
Case by Applicant
1)
A mixed use development was
proposed including 291 build to rent homes as well as a range of residents’
amenities and a 202 room aparthotel.
2)
Application was lodged in July
2021 and registered in August 2021.
3)
Consultation responses from
statutory consultees were positive. Some minor issues had been raised and the
Applicant was due to submit some amendments to pick up on some of the matters.
4)
Had had meetings with the Planning
Design Team and amendments were shortly to be submitted.
5)
The principle of development and
uses proposed were in accordance with the Local Plan 2018.
6)
Research carried out by the
Council demonstrated there was a lack of stock and affordability in the private
sale market and the consequence was that the private rented sector was now the
largest tenure in Cambridge. 20% of this stock did not meet basis health and
safety standards.
7)
The aparthotel was supported by
policy 77 of the Local Plan.
8)
The development was meant to be
exemplar in terms of sustainability. The applicants had engaged closely with
the Council’s Sustainability Officer.
9)
Biodiversity net gain was 92% and
the low carbon design had meant a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
10)
There had been 2 years of
engagement with officers, residents and interested stakeholders before the
application was submitted.
11)
Looking at the issue raised by the
Petitioners of harm to the setting; the applicants had used an urban design
approach to relate the buildings together and had looked at the symmetry of the
existing layout and breaking buildings into smaller blocks, use of materials
which reflects the existing roof pitches and use of gable ends.
12)
Looking at the issue of separation
distances (overlooking distances) usually these are between 18-20m and were
usually back to back and not front to front. The application proposes
separation distances of at least 26.9m. The neighbouring development, Darwin
Green had separation distances ranging from 8.6m to 18.8m.
13)
Proposed to reduce the building
height next to the NIAB building.
14)
The relationship between the
aparthotel and NIAB had been carefully considered.
15)
The applicants did not believe the
proposed development would cause any harm to the existing setting.
16)
The microbrewery was seen as a
community facility and would be managed as part of the whole development. No
concerns had been raised by the Environmental Health Officer. Noise and opening hours would be managed
through the application process.
17)
The proposals sought to build the
social and economical history of NIAB into the development. Areas for gardening
would build on the agricultural history of the site.
18)
The Conservation Officer provided
a positive response to the proposed development.
19)
There was a group Tree Preservation
Order (TPO) on the site. Six trees were proposed to be removed, five of these
were due to the development and one was due to the condition of the tree.
Forty-two new pleached lime trees were proposed to be planted, as well as 113
new trees.
20)
Had been encouraged to use Howes
Place for pedestrian and cycle access to and from the site to improve the
permeability of the site. Most of the vehicle access points were from Lawrence
Weaver Road.
21)
The first 70m of Howes Place would
have a vehicle access point for the aparthotel. It was proposed that this would
be used for a refuse collection once a week and for two laundry collections per
week. A turning head was proposed here which had been requested by the Refuse
Department. They had agreed with the Transport Officer that the use of Howes
Place would be monitored as the whole site was owned by the Applicant.
22)
High quality amenity space would
be provided. The development would provide 130% of the open space standards
(taking into account semi-private courtyards), if the communal areas were
excluded then the development would provide 87% of the open space standards.
Generous open space provision was being proposed.
23)
Noted a comment about the under
provision of private rent dwellings. The applicant did not accept this and felt
they met with national advice, the new local plan did not provide much policy
context for build to rent. The adopted Housing Strategy mirrored national
advice that 20% of the units should be designated as affordable and should be
offered at a maximum market discount of 80%.
24)
The application was in accordance
with car parking standards (expressed in Cambridge as maximum standards). A
wide range of sustainable transport measures were due to be adopted. Travel
plan would be secured through the s106 agreement.
Case by
Petitioners
1)
Were not against development per
se but wanted to minimise any harm which would be caused by the proposed
development.
2)
Concerns were detailed on the
planning file and in the attached document to the agenda. They had also been raised in pre-application
discussions with the developer.
3)
The proposed area for development
was less than 2 times the size of Howes Place but the proposal was for 25 times
more dwellings on the site compared to the number of dwellings at Howes Place.
4)
The context of Howes Place was
that it was a notable development of its time and contained two storey
residential properties running the length of Howes Place (Nos 1 to 15) which
were identified as local heritage assets and are designated as Buildings of
Local Interest within Appendix G of the Local Plan due to:
a. The
architectural interest of the buildings;
b. The
grouping and street scene value of the buildings set within the formal
landscaping of Howes Place; and
c. The
importance of NIAB and the residential properties in Howes Place in the social
and economic history of Cambridge.
5)
Howes Place was exemplar of place
making and was unique in Cambridge. The proposed massing (scale and height of
the development) amounted to gross over development of the site and would harm
the amenity of existing and neighbouring properties and future residents of the
proposed development. The setting of the Local Heritage Asset was further
harmed but the microbrewery and bar alongside an existing residential area. On every
boundary of the site the proposed building heights were 1-2 storeys higher than
the existing residential properties.
6)
The development would be
overbearing and would cause harm to the amenity of residents.
7)
Residents of Plymouth Close and
Falmouth Close were advised when they bought their properties that the former
NIAB site would be open parkland.
8)
The proposed development would
cause harm to the setting and landscape of the local heritage asset.
9)
Believed the development proposed
to fell 10 pleached lime trees and not 6 as the applicant’s representative had
referred to create new access points from and to Howes Place.
10)
It was proposed to demolish 14 and
15 Howes Place, but these properties mirrored 3 and 4 Howes Place. The
archaeological report describes 14 and 15 Howes Place as a pair of unremarkable
mid-war houses but fails to recognise the significance in the context and
setting of the heritage asset.
11)
Proposed access points to and from
Howes Place created a short cut (primary desire line), which would divert
pedestrians, cyclists and e-scooters away from existing fit for purpose
dedicated footpaths and cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver Road to Howes Place
which was a narrow, unadopted, unlit private road with direct uncontrolled
access on to Huntingdon Road.
12)
The proposed development
introduces a commercial service yard with access from and to Howes Place,
requiring HGV turning manoeuvres to be undertaken on Howes Place. This would
create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists from over 500 dwellings large
commercial vehicles to serve the aparthotel and microbrewery and bar,
non-residential traffic linked to drop-offs to and pick-ups from the
aparthotel, microbrewery, bar and internet shopping deliveries to the build to
rent properties.
13)
The proposed development failed to
provide the required amount of fully accessible and immediately convenient
amenity space, which would prejudice the health and well being of future
residents. The amenity space included the area surrounding the former NIAB
headquarters and the internal courtyard of the aparthotel.
14)
The Transport Statement sought to
demonstrate that sufficient parking would be provided within the proposed
development, the reduction of the proposed parking spaces for the build to rent
units from 144 to 110 was overly optimistic and relied on a behavioural shift
towards use of a car club scheme. The provision of 28 spaces for the aparthotel
underestimated the parking spaces which would be needed. There was no
assessment relating to the number of parking spaces required for the proposed
45 staff members for the aparthotel. The Local Plan stated that there should be
1 space per 2 staff members.
15)
Considered the proposed
development failed to provide sufficient parking and therefore residents of,
and visitors to the proposed development would seek alternative parking
provision beyond the proposed development site for example within Darwin Green
or on Howes Place.
16)
There would be inadequate
provision of affordable private rented dwellings. The caselaw Council officers
had relied on did not address the circumstances of the application. The caselaw
did not justify a reduction in the provision of affordable private rent
dwellings from 20% to 12.7%.
Case Officer’s
Comments:
1)
Key Dates relating to the application
include:
2)
The key constraints on the site include:
3)
The application was validated on 2nd August
2021 and the neighbour consultation and local press advertisement expired
on the 9th September 2021. The site notice expired on the
20th September 2021.
4)
Third Party comments included:
· 42 letters of
objection - (directly adjacent to the development site)
o
Howes Place
o
Falmouth Avenue
o
Lawrence Weaver Road
· 2 letters of
support.
5)
Consultation Responses:
· There were a
number of holding objections which had been raised by the following
consultees. None of the objections appear to be major in-principal issues and
officers feel they can be addressed by a series of amendments. These amendments
might also help address some of the concerns that have been submitted by third
parties partially around:
o
the impact to the non-designated heritage
assets
o
impact on existing residential amenity
o
highway safety
6)
There has been ongoing dialog with the
agent/applicant to shape the amendment package and officers would continue
these discussions after the Development Control Forum (DCF) taking on
board comments raised during the DCF.
7)
Awaiting a response from 3C Shared Waste and
still need to agree details on Open Space provision and S106
contributions.
8)
Application initially due to be determined on the 1
November 2021, however an extension of time has been agreed with the agent
until 31 January 2022 to address the outstanding concerns through the
submission of an amendment package. The application will be subsequently
determined by the Joint Development Control Committee in subsequent
months.
Case by Ward Councillors
Councillor S.Baigent:
1)
Howes Place is a local heritage asset and comprised
a row of Edwardian houses set back in a picturesque lime tree setting which
stood alone as a particular example of architectural genius and historical
interest. Nature compliments the architecture and use of space.
2)
Each house in Howes place is beautifully crafted
and together form the community and guardians of the historical treasure
3)
Supported the concerns raised by residents.
4)
Objected to the scale and massing of the proposed
development and especially in terms of building heights. This would affect the
original architectural design of Howes Place.
5)
The proposed microbrewery, facing residential
housing would offend the tranquillity which frames the community space.
6)
Asked for consideration to be given to the impact
on Darwin Green, Falmouth Road and Plymouth Road of the development proposals.
Written Statement from Councillor Payne read out by the Committee
Manager:
Expressed concerns relating to this development are as follows:
1)
From all boundaries of the site, the proposed
buildings are at least one, and in general, two storeys higher than the
adjoining existing properties. This will
significantly overshadow Howes Place. I
am particularly concerned to see the ApartHotel standing at 16 metres, making
it one of the taller buildings on the site.
For a commercial venture, this seems to me to be unnecessary. While I am in favour of providing new housing,
building to one or two storeys higher than neighbouring properties is over-development,
which will be to the detriment of the neighbouring residents, and indeed the
new residents of the proposed development.
2)
The plans propose felling at least 10 pleached
limes, all of which are currently under a Tree Protection Order. The trees are integral to the unique
streetscape of Howes Place, and the committee will be aware of the great
environmental benefit of rows of trees: we should always be seeking to add more
trees, not remove them. I am concerned
that permitting the felling of these trees would set the precedent for future
development, that a Tree Protection Order can be overturned.
3)
Access to the proposed development from Howes Place
is an issue the petitioners will discuss, but I am particularly concerned to
see a proposed service access route to the ApartHotel from Howes Place. The entrance to Howes Place is very narrow,
and cannot accommodate additional large vehicles, risking dangerous conflict
with other road users. Bin lorries already need to reverse along Howes
Place, so adding further large vehicles to this is a recipe for disaster which
could be easily avoided by moving this service access to Lawrence Weaver Road.
4)
The use of e-scooters as a form of transport is
increasing, so I would like to see some consideration given to the movement of
this form of transport. Given the speed
at which these vehicles can travel, I would like to see safeguards to ensure
they have no access to or from Howes Place, for the reasons given above.
5)
Lawrence Weaver Road is not yet adopted by the
County Council, but given the increase in traffic which will occur once the
former NIAB site is developed, I hope the committee and the developers will
encourage the County Council to adopt the road as quickly as possible so
traffic on here can be properly directed and the road be properly
maintained. This should include adding double yellow lines along the
cycle lanes on Lawrence Weaver road so cyclists from the proposed development
are not discouraged from using these cycle lanes, as they are currently used
for parking cars in.
6)
Publicly available green space is at a premium in
Cambridge, so I would like to see the green space in the ApartHotel being made
available to all residents, otherwise there is potentially a large area of
green space only open to be used by a small number of people, and not
benefitting the wider area.
7)
The assessment of parking needs for staff at the
ApartHotel sets a requirement of 4 parking spaces for up to 45 members of
staff. While of course I hope all
members of staff will be able to travel to work by public transport or active
travel, at present this seems unrealistic.
This assessment also fails to comply with Appendix L of the Local Plan,
which sets the requirement at 1 space for every 2 members of staff. A lack of parking will lead to overflow
parking on the surrounding streets such as Howes Place, Whitehouse Lane and
Lawrence Weaver Road. In order to
prevent this problem, I would recommend that this requirement is re-evaluated
to be more realistic.
Councillor S.Smith:
1)
Noted the proposed development had been prepared
without a parameter plan. Noted that the Darwin Green development had prepared
a parameter plan so queried why this proposed development had not prepared one.
2)
Felt insufficient weight and due regard had been
given to Howes Place as a local heritage asset. The current planning process
would allow a place like Howes Place to be created.
3)
Howes Place was an exemplar example of place making
and should be enhanced and protected.
4)
The lack of a parameter plan has led to an
overwhelming massing of development in both scale and height and as a result of
this key concerns arise.
5)
Access was a key concern. Understood that
connectivity was a good planning principle and policy however consideration
needed to be given as to the harm as well as the benefits of the application
and how this would be applied. A balanced application of the policy was needed.
6)
It was clear the development would create a desire
line through Howes Place and this was undesirable both because of the
inappropriate use of Howes Place and the appropriate use of Lawrence Weaver
Road which had purpose built infrastructure.
7)
The amenity space proposed was inadequate and
inappropriate.
8)
Expressed concerns regarding the use of Sustainable
Drainage System (SUDS) as part of a usable recreation amenity space.
9)
A parameter plan was required and would result in
the reduction in scale and massing of the height of the development.
10)
Access points to the development needed to be
addressed. There should be no access points from Howes Place.
11)
Current planning tools could not create a place
like Howes Place, but they can protect and enhance Howes Place.
Members’ Questions
and Comments:
The Principal Planner and Assistant Director Delivery answered as
follows in response to Members’ questions:
1) The
current holding objections to the application included:
a. Heritage
Officer - They were generally comfortable with the siting and location of the
aparthotel but had concerns regarding the proposed height of the building and
this encroaching above the existing NIAB headquarter building. Applicant had
shown a willingness to reduce the height of the aparthotel. A lack of
information about the finish of the NIAB building, hoped further information
would be provided.
b. Urban
Design and Landscape - Had also expressed concerns about view points from the
build to rent units from Plymouth Close and Beagle Way, had tried to break up
roof lines so that the development looked less bulky. There were concerns about
the entrance point from Lawrence Weaver Road, in the plans submitted it looked
like a hard landscaped entrance, and they wanted to add a bit more surveillance
to the area so had looked at moving the building around and adding some soft
landscaping.
c. Highways
– Had expressed concerns about the in and out access points on Lawrence Weaver
Road and the impact on highway safety and cyclist safety and wanted one of the
access points removed. The applicant had agreed to this and was looking at
re-designing the access so that it was improved for cyclists.
d. Disability
and Access Officer – The way the bathrooms had been designed needed to be
looked at. The agent was going to be asked to make amendments.
e. More
information needed to be submitted regarding accident data, trip generation and
mitigation measures in the transport assessment.
f. Drainage
Officer – The preferred solution was for water to flow into the surface water
drainage on Lawrence Weaver Road. Hoped that the drain on Lawrence Weaver Road
would be adopted. A back up plan was required in case the drain was not
adopted.
g. S106
contributions needed to be agreed and what open space was included in
calculations and what wasn’t.
h. A
public art strategy was required.
2) The
height of the aparthotel shown by the applicant’s representative during their presentation
showed the proposed reduction (1m) in building heights.
3) The
application had been seen by the Quality Panel a couple of times so they were
aware of the current layout proposed. Would ensure that members were able to
see comments made by the Quality Panel before the application came to
committee.
4) Officers
would take advice on the proposed reduction of the affordable housing.
5) Noted
the reference to Darwin Green’s parameter plan and would work with the
applicant regarding this request although felt the Design and Access Statement
dealt with some of the issues which would be contained in a parameter plan.
6) The
aparthotel fell within the sui generis use class so there was no requirement to
provide open space so there were different considerations compared to a
residential use but open space would be provided as part of the development.
7) Noted
discussions about SUDS and the suitability of using this space as part of open
space for play areas. A trim trail was proposed on the site and it was proposed
to keep this away from the water SUDS features. The introduction of water to
the open spaces was considered an important feature
8) The
main vehicular access to the site would be from Lawrence Weaver Road and
parking would be contained in the basement, there would be a few disabled
parking spaces at ground level but no general parking provision. The Howes
Place access would only service the aparthotel. Highways expected the rest of
the access points onto Howes Place to be pedestrian and cycling access points.
No objections on highways safety grounds had been raised so far.
9) It
was felt that 14 and 15 Howes Place made less of a contribution to the wider
group of buildings and the opening up of the rear part of the headquarters
would make a positive benefit to the buildings of local interest as a group. It
was a balanced judgement,
10) The
proposed development would be covered by the North West and West Community
Forum.
11) The
site fell within the City Council administrative boundary but also within the
sites allocated for determination by the Joint Development Control
Committee.
12) The
mixed use of the site included the aparthotel and the build to rent properties
but also within those buildings there would be facilities on the ground floor
which could be used by the community including a gym, swimming pool, brewery,
cafe and co-working space.
The Applicant’s Representative answered as follows in response to Members’
questions:
1)
The difference between residential private
properties in the private rented sector could include individual landlords or
landlords with small portfolios. Their properties could be dotted around the
city or there could be small numbers together. This development was different
in that the overall development was designed around the rental offer, it
included a high level of shared amenities for those residents. The buy to rent
facility would be managed 24/7 and there would be concierge staff on site who
could deal with all issues at all times. The build to rent model relied on
having high occupancy levels and few ‘voids’ and to achieve this the applicant
would need to ensure that the site was well maintained and managed.
2)
Noted the comments made by members regarding the
provision of affordable housing. The applicant had taken QC’s advice and was
confident they would comply with housing policies, the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and the Housing Strategy.
3)
The applicants were able to reduce the level of
affordable housing provided in the application as they were able to claim
credit on the units which had been granted consent under the prior notification
procedure. These units would not be brought
forward if the aparthotel development was brought forward.
Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent
1) Felt
this was an exciting development for the area.
2) Believed
the development would meet known needs for a high-quality rented housing scheme
and would offer security of tenure for those who were unable to buy on the open
market or for those who chose not to do so.
3) The
proposal included 291 buy to rent units and an aparthotel with 202 rooms.
4) The
applicant had been through a lengthy consultation process before the submission
of the application.
5) The
application had been considered by the Quality Panel twice and had been well
received by the Panel and changes to the application had been informed by
comments made by the Quality Panel.
6) It
was an exemplar scheme in terms of sustainability.
7) It
was a policy compliant scheme.
8) Felt
that the proposal was respectful to Darwin Green and Howes Place and how the
proposed scheme would sit next to those neighbouring properties.
9) The
vehicle access into / from Howes Place was only for servicing the aparthotel
and for nothing else. It was only expected to have 3 movements a week.
10) Noted
that 6 pleached lime trees would be lost however 42 new trees would be planted.
11) Some
limited design changes would be coming and had been discussed with officers.
Summing up by the
Petitioners
1) There was no clear justification for the harm which would be caused by
the development to both the local heritage asset and amenity of existing
residents in neighbouring properties and future residents of the proposed
development which would be outweighed by a public benefit.
2) The proposal failed to satisfy:
a. NPPF paragraph 130 – that the development would function well and add to
the overall quality of the area;
b. policy 55 in terms of responding to context;
c. policy 57 in providing a positive impact on the setting (height, scale,
form).
d. Policy 61 in terms of conservation and enhancement of a Cambridge
historic environment.
3) Felt that members should undertake a site visit.
4) Proposed the following changes:
a. That access points on to Howes Place should be removed and all access
points should be on to Lawrence Weaver Road.
b. Wanted the unique place of Howes Place to be respected.
c. Wanted the parameter rules from the Darwin Green development to be
applied to this development which would result in significant reduction in
massing (scale and height) to protect the amenity of existing residents in
neighbouring properties and future residents of the proposed development and
contribute fully to the protection and enhancement of Howes Place. The
significant reduction in massing would resolve the issues with under provision
of amenity space and parking spaces.
5) There should be a minimum of 20% affordable private rented housing
provided.
Final Comments of
the Chair
25)
The Chair observed the following:
· Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties,
published on the council’s website and appended to the Planning Officers
report.
· The
case officer should contact the applicants/agent after the meeting to discuss
whether a meeting would be helpful to discuss the issues raised at the Forum
and to discuss any changes that may be necessary to the application. The
applicant will be encouraged to keep in direct contact with the petitioners and
to seek their views on any amendment/s.
· The
case officer will inform the petitioners’ representatives of any amendments to
the application. Normally, no further Development Control Forum will be held if
the planning application is amended.
· The
petitioners’ representatives will be informed of the date of the meeting at
which the application is to be considered by the committee and will be sent
copies of the committee report. The petitioners and applicants will be asked to
send any further comments they may have on the report to the planning case
officer as soon as possible, so that they can be circulated in good time to
members of the committee.
Supporting documents:
PDF 3 MB