A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - decisions

14/1496/FUL - 315-349 Mill Road

31/03/2015 - 14/1496/FUL - 315-349 Mill Road

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.


The proposal sought refusal for revised plans for student housing development consisting of 270 rooms, reduced from 301 rooms, communal areas, bicycle parking, refuse store, plant room, office, new substation, infrastructure and access.


Jim Tarzey (Agent), Colin Black (Applicant) and Peter Montique (member of the public) addressed the Committee in support of the application.


Colin Wiles addressed the Committee in objection to the application.


The representation covered the following issues:


  i.  Not opposed to student housing but there was an issue of control with student accommodation.

  ii.  Local surveys undertaken by East Mill Road Action Group indicated strong support for family / affordable housing and open spaces, not student accommodation.

  iii.  There was no evidence to suggest that student accommodation in the area would kick start residential builds.

  iv.  Stated that student accommodation could be a very lucrative business and this was where tighter control of these schemes were needed.

  v.  Referred to the letter sent by Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) attached to the amendment sheet as vague.

  vi.  Described the Officer’s report as excellent which gave solid reasons for refusal.


Councillor Baigent (WardCouncillor forRomsey) addressed theCommittee aboutthe application.


The representation covered the following issues:


  i.  Informed the Committee that he had met with the developers to advise of the following;

·  The land had been designated for residential site as   referenced in the Local Plan and was not suitable for   student accommodation.

·  If the application would be brought forward for   consideration it would probably be   challenged.

  ii.  There was an over whelming support from residents in the Romsey Ward that the City Council should follow the Local Plan.

  iii.  Agreed that the letter from ARU was vague and did not indicate if they supported this particular application.

  iv.  Had met with ARU who had indicated that the type of accommodation proposed on this application would not be their preferred choice.

  v.  700 flats approved by ARU remained empty in the CB1 Area.

  vi.   A recent Change of Use application had been received to change ARU student accommodation to accommodation for language students as the rooms could not be filled.

 vii.  Reiterated that the site was marked as a residential site and not suitable for the proposed application as recommended by the Local Plan. 


The Committee:


Resolved (7 votes to 1) to refuse the application for full planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions and the amended reason 5 recommended by the officers.


Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:


Amended reason for refusal 5 to read:


‘The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for: indoor sports or formal outdoor open space provision to mitigate the need arising from the site; transport mitigation (ECATP); and monitoring contributions in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/8, 8/3 and 10/1, the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010), the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010 and the Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2002.’