Issue - decisions

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places introduced the item and made the following points:

 

       i.          Planning permission for the redevelopment of the University Arms Hotel had been approved in November 2013.

     ii.          A public notice on the proposal for a compound on Parkers Piece received 63 responses.

   iii.          The period for comments would be extended until 7 November 2014.

   iv.          She hoped to respond personally to all comments received.

 

The committee received a report from the Open Spaces Officer.

 

The Head of Planning Services made the following points:

 

       i.          Welcomed the redevelopment of the University Arms Hotel.

     ii.          The approved design was a vast improvement and would enhance both Parker’s Piece and Regent Street.

   iii.          This was an important development for Cambridge but needed to be managed carefully.

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor and the Head of Planning Services said the following:

 

       i.          A fee of £200,000 for the use of a small part (2%) of Parkers Piece had been proposed. This equates to the commercial rent for the use of the land during this time.

     ii.          It was hoped that 50% of this fee could be allocated for improvements to parks and open spaces in the City. 

   iii.          It was expected that the developer would widen and resurface the paths as part of the project. This would improve the current ‘pinch point’ at Regent Terrace/Regent Street.

   iv.          The Highways Department had expressed no concern with the proposals.

    v.          A ‘Considerate Contractors Scheme’ would be in place for the development.

 

Councillor Hipkin confirmed that he had voted in favour of the application at the Planning Committee. He reiterated comments made by the Head of Planning Services that it was an important development for Cambridge. 

 

Councillor Hipkin read out a statement on behalf of Nigel Grimshaw, a local resident and contractor.

 

The statement covered the following points:

 

       i.          The main concern of the developer was to save money.

     ii.          The proposed build time was inaccurate. The Empire State Building took less time to construct than was being proposed for the University Arms Hotel.

   iii.          There was sufficient space within the existing footprint of the Hotel to complete the redevelopment.

 

The Operations Director (McLarens) made the following points:

 

       i.          The key concern for the developer was health and safety.

     ii.          Whilst the hotel could be rebuilt within its own footprint the use of an additional compound would reduce the construction time.

   iii.          The proposed build schedule for the hotel redevelopment was 129 weeks but this could increase as the works progressed.

 

In response to questions the Operations Director (McLarens) said the following:

 

       i.          The City Council would not discuss the proposed compound with the contractor during the pre-application phase.

     ii.          The Highways Department had issued the contractor with guidance during the pre-application phase.

   iii.          Construction vehicles would only be able to access the site during set hours – as per the Planning Conditions.

 

Councillor Cearns raised concern with the planning process and questioned why permission was granted if the developer had not specified how they intended to build it within the current footprint.

 

Concern was also raised regarding potential highways issues during the construction phase and the lack of early consultation with the public.

 

Councillor Cantrill highlighted that Parkers Piece was a unique and well used amenity space in the City and that the Council should require a larger fee from the developers. It was also noted that the Grand Arcade had been developed on a very restricted site and without the need for additional compounds outside of the footprint.

 

In response to questions from the public the Head of Planning Services said the following:

 

       i.          Consultation on the discharge of Conditions did not have to take place. These decisions were delegated to officers.

     ii.          The correct planning process had been followed.

 

Members of the public made the following additional points:

 

       i.          A fee of £200,000 was not enough.

     ii.          The potential savings for the Hotel and the contractor of an 18 month earlier completion time far exceeded £200,000.

   iii.          The development should be done within the existing footprint.

   iv.          A percentage of any fees should be given to Parkside School as it’s a major user of the open space.

    v.          The development would cause additional safety issues and conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.

   vi.          Information on the City Council’s website regarding the planning approval and the related Conditions was difficult to find.

 vii.          Access to the site by construction traffic would cause safety issues.

 

In response to further questions regarding the proposed fee of £200,000 the Chief Property Surveyor reiterated that this was based on the commercial rent of the land. Examples such as the land rented to Peterhouse at Coe Fen were also taken into account.  

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places reiterated that no decision had been made, the consultation period had been extended and that she intended to reply personally to everyone that responds. Prior to making any decision the main issues to consider would be:

 

       i.          Would allowing the compound reduce the disruption?

     ii.          Can we guarantee that the space would be returned to its prior condition?

   iii.          Could the funds generated be used to improve open space within the City, including improvements to Parkers Piece?

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (nem con):

 

       i.          To note the contents of the report and that there were no decisions required at this time.

 

     ii.          To note the intention to extend the period for comments until the 7 November 2014.