Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
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 (Ward Councillor for Romsey) addressed the Committee about the
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.’