Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The Committee
received an application for change of use (sui generis
- in the alternative) to allow the first and second floors of Block B and the
identified DDA room (no. G01) in Block A as aparthotel rooms
or student rooms.
The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application from a local resident
representing Friends of Mitcham’s Corner.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
Took issue with the argument there
was a lack of demand for student accommodation.
ii.
Suggested that the Student Castle
development was not making reasonable adjustments to make the building
Disability Discrimination Act compliant.
iii.
There was no wheelchair accessible
toilet.
iv.
Took issue with the sole
accessible (DDA) room being shared by the student accommodation and hotel. If
one organisation used it, the other could not.
v.
Suggested the Applicant was not
meeting requirements to have a clearly defined parking space for the sole use
of disabled drivers as the space was currently allocated for general use.
Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application.
Councillor Sargeant (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
There was a need for student accommodation.
ii.
The County Council expressed the view that the
development would impose extra car parking demand in neighbouring streets.
iii.
Taxi parking was an issue. There were no attempts
to manage this by the Student Castle development.
iv.
The development was originally aimed at short term
lets. Queried if people would need car parking space(s) if they stayed for 90
days (as per the maximum length).
v.
Local residents had concerns that the Applicant
would not adhere to planning consent conditions.
vi.
People would only get a travel information pack
when they arrived (not before) which put pressure on parking facilities.
The Committee:
Voted to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation
for the following reasons:
1.
Loss of student accommodation with reference to the
Student Study and NPPG;
2.
Lack of commercial vehicle and servicing provision
(policy 8/9);
3.
Loss of disabled student accommodation and the appropriateness
of the location of the aparthotel wheelchair accessible room (policies 3/12(b),
3/7(m), 7/10(d));
4.
Impact of parking from hotel visitors on the
amenity of local residents (policy 3/4);
Vote split as follows:
· On a show of hands
Reason 1 was lost by 2 votes to 5.
· On a show of hands
Members resolved to keep Reason 2 by 4 votes to 2.
· On a show of hands
Reason 3 was lost by 3 votes to 4.
· On a show of hands
Members unanimously resolved to keep Reason 4.
Resolved the application was contrary to the officer recommendation for reasons
2 and 4, as set out in the officer update report, as set out below:
· The apart-hotel
use makes inadequate provision for access and for parking of servicing and
commercial vehicles. The current arrangements are resulting in obstructions
being caused along the main vehicular access road off Victoria Road, which is
also used by residents in Corona Road to access their garages. The proposal
would potentially exacerbate this conflict and is therefore contrary to policy
8/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).
· The apart-hotel
use generates car parking from customers staying and accessing the site which
is causing obstructions to the internal access way and putting pressure on the
surrounding streets. The apart-hotel use is generating additional traffic and
movements that are having a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of
the local residents in terms of on-street car parking and noise disturbance.
The apart-hotel use is therefore contrary to policies 3/4 and 8/2 of the Cambridge
Local Plan (2006).