PLANNING COMMITTEE 11th November 2010 Application Number

10/0851/FUL Agenda Item

Date Received 31st August 2010 Officer Mr Tony Collins

Target Date 30th November 2010

Ward Abbey

Site 180 - 190 Newmarket Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB5 8HF

Proposal Erection of 219 bed hotel and restaurant (following demolition of existing buildings), together with associated infrastructure.

Applicant C/o 7 Dukes Court 54-62 Newmarket Road Cambridge CB5 8DZ

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The application site is an area between Newmarket Road and

Harvest Way, west of the junction between Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane. It measures 100m from east to west, and tapers from 45m deep at the western end to 30m deep along the Coldhams Lane frontage. It is currently occupied by a number of light industrial / storage uses. There is an extant outline planning permission on the site, which is detailed in the site history section of this report.

1.2 The site forms a part of allocated site 7.01 in the proposals

schedule of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). This wider site includes all the land between Newmarket Road and Harvest Way from Occupation Road to Coldhams Lane (except for the Halfway House site at the corner of Harvest Way and New Street), as well as additional plots on the east side of Occupation Road, and the Mackay’s site to the east of the Crown Court building on East Road. The site is allocated for employment, Class B1 use (offices, research and light industry), housing, and student hostels.

1.3 Both sides of Newmarket Road in this area are primarily

commercial. There is a mixture of shops, offices and other commercial activities, but there are a few residential uses at first-floor level. The church of St Andrew-the-Less lies a short distance to the north-west. Behind the commercial premises on Newmarket Road are two-storey terraced houses in Godesdone Road, Beche Road and Beche Court. To the south-east of the site is sheltered housing in the Halfway House building, to the south-west are allotments, and beyond them two-storey housing on the south side of New Street and two- and three-storey housing on the former Simpers ropeworks site between Harvest Way and New Street.

1.4 The site is not within any conservation area, but the Riverside

part of the City of Cambridge Conservation Area No.1 (Central) lies approximately 70m to the north. The site is outside the controlled parking zone (CPZ).

1.5 There are no trees on the site. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission to erect a 219-

bed hotel. The entrance foyer, reception area, offices, stores, kitchen and restaurant would be accommodated on the ground floor, raised slightly above the ground level of the site, with parking for cars and cycles in the basement. The hotel bedrooms would be accommodated in four floors above. A detailed analysis of the heights of various components of the proposed building and earlier proposals is included in paragraph 8.9 below.

2.2 The proposed building would measure 93m in length. The

section west of the central foyer would be 15m deep and the eastern section 14m deep. The restaurant area would project south 14m from the western section, towards Harvest Way. To the west of this projection would be an area 14m x 18m containing the ramp to the underground car park, a delivery bay, bin stores and an electricity sub-station. The car park ramp would be covered by an extension of the roof of the restaurant section. The delivery bay would be enclosed by sliding timber doors. The main entrance would be to the east of the restaurant, reached by steps and a ramp from Harvest Way,

where there would be a drop-off area and three parking bays, one of which would be suitable for disabled use. There would also be a pedestrian entrance on Newmarket Road, accessed by steps and a platform lift beneath a canopy.

2.3 A strip of land along the Newmarket Road and Coldham’s Lane

edges of the site would be given up to the highway authority. This land could be used for a westward extension of the inbound bus lane, or for the improvement of cycling provision.

2.4 The areas to the south-east, east and north of the building

would be landscaped. Eleven London plane trees would be planted within the paved area along the whole length of the north side of the building. Silver limes, birches and whitebeams would be planted to the south and west of the building, with shrubs and hedges at the entrances and street boundaries of the site. Specimen tulip trees would be planted at the extreme eastern end of the site, and alongside the main entrance steps.

2.5 The key differences between the building proposed here and

that refused permission under 09/0708/FUL are as follows.

Reduction from six storeys to five. Reduction in overall height from 20.7m to 17.8m above

pavement level. Reduction in parapet height on north and south elevations

from 18.6m to 15.8m above pavement level. Set-back of western wing from Newmarket Road increased

from 8m to 12m. Redesign of eastern end from rectangular form with ‘pop-out’

bay to semi-circular plan with no projection. Change of materials from predominantly metal cladding

panels to buff brick and timber boarding. Change from orthodox projecting bays on north elevation to

use of bays formed by blocks of projecting ‘fins’ or ‘buttresses’, and additional application of this form to eastern end.

Oblique central entrance and reception altered to run straight across ground floor.

Reduction in size of north entrance canopy, elimination of entrance menhirs, addition of internal platform lift.

Reconfiguration of windows into consistent vertical lines. Addition of timber framework with climbing plants to south

elevation.

Separation of solar panel layout into five separate blocks. 2.6 The application is accompanied by the following supporting

information:

1. Design and Access Statement 2. Transport Assessment 3. Transport Management Plan 4. Air Quality Assessment 5. Noise Survey and Assessment 6. Site Ground Investigation and Contamination Strategy 7. Supplementary Ground Gas Monitoring Report 8. Sustainable Energy Systems Feasibility Study 9. Sustainability Statement 10. Tree Survey 11. Habitat survey 12. Utilities Statement 13. Lighting Assessment 14. Site Waste Management Plan 15. Ventilation and Extraction Statement 16. Drainage Statement 17. Public Art Delivery Plan 18. Archaeological Desktop Assessment

3.0 SITE HISTORY

Reference Description Outcome 00/0751/FP Redevelopment of existing

commercial uses to provide 120 private flats, 107 student rooms, and 495m2 of retail space, (all in four blocks up to a maximum of 10 storeys in height) including 135 car parking spaces, 207 cycle parking spaces an residential landscaping and amenity areas

Withdrawn

02/0739/OP Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of residential units (max 123), Class B1(a) offices (max 6780m2), Class B1 (b) or B1(c) managed workspaces (max 360m2), Class D2 community

Approved with conditions

centre (max 466m2), basement and surface car parking

06/0373/REM Reserved matters submission for office (class B1) development, pursuant to 02/0739/OP

Approved with conditions

09/0297/FUL Erection of 220-bed hotel (following demolition of existing buildings) together with associated infrastructure

Withdrawn

09/0708/FUL Erection of 219-bed hotel (following demolition of existing buildings) together with associated infrastructure

Refused. Appeal lodged but later withdrawn

3.1 The decision notices for the outline permission 02/00739/OP,

the reserved matters submission for office accommodation 06/0373/REM, and the previously refused application for a hotel 09/0708/FUL are attached to this report as Appendices A, B and C.

3.2 The outline application 02/0737/OP covers a larger site area,

including the whole of this application site, but also extending 135m further west to include the area bounded by Newmarket Road, Abbey Street and Harvest Way, giving a total area more than double the size of this application site.

3.3 The outline permission 02/0739/OP is valid until 16th March

2011. The reserved matters approval 06/0373/REM, for office development, is subject to a condition (Condition 1), requiring implementation within three years of the approval, a period which expired on 18th July 2009.

3.4 However, this condition conflicts with Condition 2 of the outline

permission, which requires implementation of the development within five years of the outline consent, or within two years of the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is the later. The advice of the Council’s legal officers is that the Council had no need to impose a time-limit condition on the reserved matters approval, and more importantly, no power to impose such a condition if it was in conflict with the existing conditions on the outline approval. This means that Condition 1 of the reserved matters approval is open to challenge in the courts as invalid. It is the legal officers’ clear view that such a

challenge would be successful (the authority for this is R v Newbury District Council ex parte Stevens 1992 P&CR 438), and that the condition, once established as invalid, would be ruled severable from the approval, leaving the reserved matters approval extant until 16th March 2011.

3.5 This means that 06/0373/REM must be regarded as being

extant for the purposes of its weight in the determination of this application, because the local planning authority must have regard to the possibility that the applicant could proceed to develop under that approval. However the weight which should be attached to this permission diminishes as its expiry date approaches, because the likelihood of its implementation decreases. In addition, a Planning Inspector’s recent decision on a neighbouring site casts further doubt on the weight which should be attached to the extant permission (see below).

3.6 An application for an adjacent site to the west, including most,

but not all, of the remainder of the area included in 02/0739/OP, was received by the Council on 30th April 2009. That application (09/0382/FUL) was for 112 residential units and a commercial / community use space, in a building of six storeys. The application was refused on 28th July 2009. An appeal was lodged against that refusal. Following an informal hearing, the appeal was dismissed on 24th June 2010. In his decision, which is attached as Appendix D, the Inspector indicates that because he considers the possibility of its implementation to be low, he does not consider that the extant permission should be accorded any great weight in assessing appropriate building height in an application on the site to the west.

3.7 There are a large number of papers included as appendices to

this report. To assist clarity, I summarise them here.

Appendix A Decision notice for the extant outline permission on the wider site (C/02/0739/OP)

Appendix B Decision notice for the extant permission for office development on the wider site

Appendix C Decision notice for the previously refused hotel application on this site (09/0708/FUL)

Appendix D Planning Inspector’s decision on appeal against refusal of application for residential development on adjoining site to the west (09/0382/FUL)

Appendix E Comments from Design and Conservation Panel

on the present application Appendix F Final advice from Cambridgeshire County

Council (New Communities) on transport issues Appendix G Joint response from residents associations

(BRUNK, PACT and RARA) on issues of need/capacity, excessive height and excessive traffic generation

Appendix H Sequential assessment of potential hotel sites attached to previous application, 09/0708/FUL

4.0 PUBLICITY 4.1 Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes

5.0 POLICY 5.1 Central Government Advice 5.2 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005): Paragraphs 7 and 8 state that national policies and regional and local development plans (regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks) provide the framework for planning for sustainable development and for development to be managed effectively. This plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth (2009): sets out the government’s planning policies for economic development, which includes development in the B Use Classes (offices, industry and storage), public and community uses and main town centre uses, including hotels. The policy guidance sets out plan-making policies and development management policies. The plan-making policies relate to using evidence to plan positively, planning for sustainable economic growth, planning for centres, planning for consumer choice and promoting competitive town centres, site selection and land assembly and car parking. The

development management policies address the determination of planning applications, supporting evidence for planning applications, a sequential test and impact assessment for applications for town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with the Development Plan and their consideration, car parking and planning conditions.

5.4 Planning for Town Centres: Practice guidance on need,

impact and the sequential approach (2004): Provides advice on preparing and understanding need and impact assessments, illustrates how the sequential approach can be applied, and encourages a greater degree of consistency and transparency to assist those preparing and reviewing need and impact assessments.

5.5 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic

Environment (2010): sets out the government’s planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment. Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called heritage assets. The statement covers heritage assets that are designated including Site, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens and Conservation Areas and those that are not designated but which are of heritage interest and are thus a material planning consideration. The policy guidance includes an overarching policy relating to heritage assets and climate change and also sets out plan-making policies and development management policies. The plan-making policies relate to maintaining an evidence base for plan making, setting out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, Article 4 directions to restrict permitted development and monitoring. The development management policies address information requirements for applications for consent affecting heritage assets, policy principles guiding determination of applications, including that previously unidentified heritage assets should be identified at the pre-application stage, the presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets, affect on the setting of a heritage asset, enabling development and recording of information.

5.6 Good Practice Guide on Planning and Tourism (2006):

Stresses the importance of tourism, and the benefits which it can bring to towns and cities. Paragraph 5 of Annex A states

that whatever type of hotel is proposed, it should fit well with its surroundings, having regard to its siting, scale, design, materials and landscaping. Paragraphs 13-16 of that Annex recommend the locating of budget hotels in historic centres within the town centre where possible. Sustainable locations for hotel uses are encouraged throughout the guidance

5.7 PPG13 Transport (2001): This guidance seeks three main

objectives: to promote more sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services, by public transport, walking and cycling, and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Paragraph 28 advises that new development should help to create places that connect with each other in a sustainable manner and provide the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

5.8 PPS22 Renewable Energy (2004): Provides policy advice to

promote and encourage the development of renewable energy sources. Local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources, their differing characteristics, location requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

5.9 PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control (2004): Emphasises that the planning system plays a key role in ensuring that other uses and developments are not affected by major existing sources of pollution.

5.10 Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention

(2004): Seeks to identify the contribution which good quality design can make to creating places where people want to live, work, and enjoy themselves in the knowledge that they can do so safely, and foster the inclusion of such design in new development.

5.11 Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions in Planning

Permissions: Advises that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

5.12 Circular 05/2005 - Planning Obligations: Advises that

planning obligations must be relevant to planning, necessary,

directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind and reasonable in all other respect.

5.13 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 – places a

statutory requirement on the local authority that where planning permission is dependent upon a planning obligation the obligation must pass the following tests:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

5.14 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 Planning Obligation Related Policies

P6/1 Development-related Provision P9/8 Infrastructure Provision P9/9 Cambridge Sub-Region Transport Strategy

5.15 Cambridge Local Plan 2006

3/1 Sustainable development 3/4 Responding to context 3/6 Ensuring co-ordinated development 3/7 Creating successful places 3/11 The design of external spaces 3/12 The design of new buildings 3/13 Tall buildings and the skyline 4/4 Trees 4/11 Conservation Areas 4/13 Pollution and amenity 4/14 Air Quality Management Areas 6/3 Tourist accommodation 7/1 Employment provision 8/1 Spatial location of development 8/2 Transport impact 8/4 Walking and Cycling accessibility 8/6 Cycle parking

8/8 Land for public transport 8/9 Commercial vehicles and servicing 8/10 Off-street car parking 8/16 Renewable energy in major new developments 10/1 Infrastructure improvements Planning Obligation Related Policies

3/7 Creating successful places

8/3 Mitigating measures 10/1 Infrastructure improvements

5.16 Supplementary Planning Documents

Cambridge City Council (May 2007) – Sustainable Design and Construction: Sets out essential and recommended design considerations of relevance to sustainable design and construction. Applicants for major developments are required to submit a sustainability checklist along with a corresponding sustainability statement that should set out information indicated in the checklist. Essential design considerations relate directly to specific policies in the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. Recommended considerations are ones that the council would like to see in major developments. Essential design considerations are urban design, transport, movement and accessibility, sustainable drainage (urban extensions), energy, recycling and waste facilities, biodiversity and pollution. Recommended design considerations are climate change adaptation, water, materials and construction waste and historic environment.

Cambridge City Council (March 2010) – Planning Obligation Strategy: provides a framework for securing the provision of new and/or improvements to existing infrastructure generated by the demands of new development. It also seeks to mitigate the adverse impacts of development and addresses the needs identified to accommodate the projected growth of Cambridge. The SPD addresses issues including transport, open space and recreation, education and life-long learning, community facilities, waste and other potential development-specific requirements. Cambridge City Council (January 2010) - Public Art: This SPD aims to guide the City Council in creating and providing

public art in Cambridge by setting out clear objectives on public art, a clarification of policies, and the means of implementation. It covers public art delivered through the planning process, principally Section 106 Agreements (S106), the commissioning of public art using the S106 Public Art Initiative, and outlines public art policy guidance.

5.17 Material Considerations

Cambridge City Council (2002)–Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan: The purpose of the Plan is to identify new transport infrastructure and service provision that is needed to facilitate large-scale development and to identify a fair and robust means of calculating how individual development sites in the area should contribute towards a fulfilment of that transport infrastructure.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Planning Policy Manager

6.1 Principle of loss of employment land acceptable in view of benefits from regeneration and employment to be created by hotel. Principle of hotel use in accordance with policy 6/3. Previous sequential assessment acceptable. Impact assessment not required. Needs assessment flawed, but hotel use acceptable under PPS4 in light if its sustainable position on edge of city centre. Car and cycle parking provision in accordance with policy. Transport Management Plan provisions which encourage use of nearby secure car parks, not on-street car parking space, are welcomed.

Cambridgeshire County Council (Engineering)

6.2 Contribution to the Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan

sought. 6.3 Provision of a 3.0 wide strip of land along the frontage of the

property to allow for future highway improvements along Newmarket Road required.

6.4 Conditions sought on the following:

servicing plan management plan for the use of the drop off and pick up

bays system to permit extensive root growth of highway trees traffic management plan for the demolition

6.5 Section 106 clauses sought on the following:

improved pedestrian crossing facilities to Coldhams Lane scheme to allow bi-directional cycling along Harvest Way

Cambridgeshire County Council (Transport) Conclusion (the full advice is attached to this report as Appendix F)

6.6 The County Council considers that the Eastern Gate site is situated in a sustainable location, within convenient walking distance of Cambridge city centre, the nearby retail parks and tourist attractions. The Eastern Gate site is served by pedestrian footways and nearby cycle routes. Newmarket Road is used by a number of bus services, and there are bus-stops situated either side of Newmarket Road in proximity to the Eastern Gate site. The bus services include a frequent Park and Ride service and the Citi 3 service which connects the Eastern Gate site with Cambridge railway station. This latter service runs at 10 minutes intervals throughout the day, Monday to Saturday, and at 30 minute intervals on Sundays and during evenings.

6.7 The County Council is satisfied that a Hotel Transport

Management Plan can be implemented which will minimise car use. The plan would include measures to inform hotel guests of the travel options available to them at the time of making their room reservations. In particular, the plan would include car parking management measures including measures to discourage parking on nearby streets.

6.8 It has been demonstrated that hotel generated traffic will

increase traffic flows on Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane by up to 3% during peak periods, both on week-days and at week-ends. The County Council recognises that both

Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane are busy transport corridors and are subject to congestion, particularly at peak times. Nevertheless, the County Council’s view is that the predicted increase in traffic levels is not material, particularly when viewed against the day-to-day and season-to-season variation in traffic flows that already occurs on the highway network. The County Council does not consider that the predicted increase in traffic flows on Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane is sufficient reason to oppose the planning application.

6.9 It is noted that the applicant has offered additional ECATP

payments, up to £100,000, if generated traffic levels exceed the levels predicted in the transport assessment. It is emphasised that the County Council’s views remain as outlined above, irrespective of whether such additional funds are forthcoming.

6.10 The County Council has no transport objection to the proposed

hotel development subject to the securing of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement.

6.11 Required mitigation measures are:

£30,000 funding towards refurbishment of Newmarket Road pedestrian crossing

provision of new pedestrian crossing facilities at the Newmarket Road/ Coldhams Lane junction

provision of land for transport improvements along Newmarket Road and Coldham’s Lane

contribution to ECATP in accordance with standard calculation

further ECATP contribution to mitigate excessive generated traffic

implementation of robust Hotel Transport Management Plan, agreed with local planning authority before occupation

Joint Urban Design Team (JUDT)

6.12 Scale and massing appropriate in views from both directions on Newmarket Road, and in view across the conservation area from Elizabeth Way bridge.

6.13 Café lounge frontage on Newmarket Road, dual entrance,

transparency of ground floor reception and café area and spill-

out space on Harvest Way side are all positive elements which increase activity on the street and natural surveillance, and are in accordance with the aims of the Draft Eastern Gate Visioning Document. Absence of through route on western side accepted.

6.14 Elevations produce a much more considered appearance than

previous applications. Appropriate cues taken from the local context. Articulation is helpful in breaking down perceived mass. Vertical rhythm positive. Support proposed brick. External cladding panels acceptable. Conditions accepted as the means to control remaining questions about materials.

6.15 Platform lift on north elevation regarded as acceptable

compromise on the issue of inclusive access. 6.16 Conditions recommended to ensure the discreet signage shown

in the Design and Access Statement

Historic Environment Manager 6.17 Commercial buildings on the site itself of no historic or

architectural merit but their height suits the nearby and older fabric of the area. No objection to the demolition.

6.18 Reduction in height is welcome but bulk remains too great and

will relate poorly to domestic scale nearby. 6.19 Increased set-back from Newmarket Road is a vast

improvement, and will provide a proper setting for the building. Junction between building and ground less satisfactory.

6.20 Revised design turns corner in a much better way. Reservations

about role in the design of escape stair at end of block. 6.21 Despite improvements, the development is still overlarge and

lacks distinctiveness.

Principal Landscape Architect

6.22 General concept supported. Tree planting scheme welcomed, but maintenance important. Hard surface materials not considered robust enough. Bollards along Newmarket Road frontage should be eliminated. Reservations about details of planting and tree pits. Conditions required.

Senior Sustainability Officer

6.23 Applicants’ proposed strategy for the use of domestic solar hot

water panels is appropriate. Other technologies have been assessed for their suitability.

6.24 Initial concern expressed about the apparent use of a reduced

floor space in the carbon calculations. (Later submission of additional information resolved this concern).

Head of Environmental Services

6.25 Air quality: the proposal would have a small negative impact on

air quality in the AQMA. Refusal is recommended on these grounds, but it is noted that the Inspector’s decision on the adjoining 9-15 Harvest Way site indicated that a similar negative impact on air quality in that case would not, in his opinion, have been a sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.

6.26 No objection on other grounds. Conditions recommended

relating to construction noise, construction hours, piling, concrete crushing, construction deliveries, dust suppression and wheel washing, ground contamination, noise insulation and ventilation, plant noise, fume extraction and waste storage provision. Informatives suggested regarding food safety and licensing.

Environment Agency

6.27 Site overlies a vulnerable aquifer, and may be contaminated by its previous uses. Permission should only be granted subject to conditions governing investigation and mitigation of ground contamination, discovery and treatment of further contamination during construction, control of surface water infiltration, piling, pollution control, surface water drainage and foul drainage.

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service

6.28 No comment made on this application, but previously indicated that additional supplies of water for firefighting were not required.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer

6.29 Underground car park raises issues of security. Roller-shutter controlled access to the car park, CCTV, and secure entry to the hotel building from the car park should be secured by condition. CCTV should cover entrances and cycle parking. Footpath across public realm should be eliminated on Newmarket Road. Seats outside entrance should be eliminated. Area to west of building should be made inaccessible. Cut-through from Coldhams Lane to New Street should be impeded by barrier Cambridge City Council Access Officer

6.30 Notes that application has responded to comments by Disability

Panel on the previous applications. Supports the application, but considers one additional disabled parking space is required.

Cambridgeshire Archaeology

6.31 No comment received, but previous comment has indicated that

this is an area of high archaeological potential, and that a programme of archaeological investigation is required.

Defence Estates Safeguarding

6.32 Comment on previous application has indicated no objection provided height of building does not exceed 23m above ground level. Design and Conservation Panel (meeting of 27th October 2010)

6.33 Conclusion (the full notes are attached as Appendix D).

The Panel welcomed the reduction in height of the hotel and the significant overall improvements in the design, but recognise that this remains a large, essentially repetitive building that will dominate its surroundings. Its success will depend on the refinement of the design in detail. The Panel are aware that with a budget hotel resources are inevitably limited, but hope nevertheless that the design team will make further effort to reduce the apparent mass of the scheme.

VERDICT – AMBER (4), GREEN (3) 6.34 The above responses are a summary of the comments that

have been received. Full details of the consultation responses can be inspected on the application file.

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 The owners/occupiers of the following addresses have made

representations objecting to the application (an asterisk indicates more than one representation from that address):

36 Abbey Road 50 Abbey Road 65 Abbey Road 31 Beche Road 46 Beche Road* 1 Godesdone Road 6 Godesdone Road 7 Godesdone Road 9 Godesdone Road 12 Godesdone Road 18 Godesdone Road 20 Godesdone Road 128 New Street 141Newmarket Road 155 Newmarket Road 171/173 Newmarket Road 179 Newmarket Road 15 Riverside 121 York Street

and from an employee of the University Department of Development Studies, and the proprietors of Cambridge Tiles and Bathrooms on Newmarket Road.

7.2 Representations objecting to the application have also been

received from:

Brunswick and North Kite Residents Association (BruNK) Petersfield Area Community Trust (PACT) Riverside Area Residents’ Association (RARA) Sustrans

Planning agents acting on behalf of the owners of the nearby MacKay’s site.

(The three residents’ associations have submitted a joint response.)

7.3 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Principle of development Excessive hotel capacity in one location is unjustified and

contrary to sustainability principles Smaller hotel would be appropriate Context of site, design and external spaces Over-dominant height and mass No routes through site as recommended in the Eastern Gate

Visioning Document Residential amenity Overshadowing Loss of privacy Visual domination Traffic Excessive traffic generation Invalid assumptions and premises in Transport Assessment Exacerbate gridlock and congestion on Coldhams Lane Zero parking hotel would be better Travel plan would be ineffective in deterring guests from

using cars No proper capacity tests for adjacent junctions Highway safety Increased risks in several locations Car and cycle parking Insufficient car parking

Overspill parking in nearby streets – Travel plan will not prevent this

Cycle parking in inappropriate locations and too cramped Environmental health Air quality issues

Planning obligations Hotel should help to restore Abbey Church

7.4 The above representations are a summary of the comments

that have been received. Full details of the representations can be inspected on the application file.

8.0 ASSESSMENT 8.1 From the consultation responses and representations received

and from my inspection of the site and the surroundings, I consider that the main issues are:

1. Principle of loss of employment land 2. Principle of hotel development 3. Context of site, design and external spaces 4. Renewable energy and sustainability 5. Disabled access 6. Residential amenity 7. Refuse arrangements 8. Traffic and transport 9. Highway safety 10. Car and cycle parking 11. Environmental health issues 12. Third party representations 13. Planning Obligation Strategy

Principle of loss of employment land

8.2 The site forms part of site 7.01 in the proposals schedule of the

Cambridge Local Plan (2006). The site is allocated for employment, B1, housing and student hostels. The current proposal represents a departure from the adopted plan allocation for the site, but this application does not preclude office development on some other part of site 7.01.

8.3 Policy advice is that although there is a continuing need for

office accommodation in the city, the proposed hotel use would help to regenerate the area and create employment, and that in the light of current economic circumstances and the evidence that implementation of the extant office permission is unlikely, the notional ‘loss’ of the permitted B1 use on this site is outweighed by the those benefits.

8.4 I concur with this advice. In my opinion, the principle of the loss

of consented B1 office space is acceptable and does not cause a conflict with policy 7.1 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) nor with the allocation of the wider 7.01 site in the proposals schedule of that Plan.

Principle of hotel development

8.5 Hotel use is not included on the list of proposed uses for this

site in the proposals schedule. The proposal therefore involves a departure from the development plan.

8.6 An assessment of need would have been required in this

situation under previous government guidance, but PPS 4 does not require such an assessment. Appendix C of The Practice Guide on Need, Impact Assessment and the Sequential Approach (2009), which was issued alongside PPS4 (2009), states, however, that local planning authorities should consider if there is a paucity or shortage of hotel accommodation for different market segments within a reasonable proximity of town centres. The applicants submitted, with the previous application on this site (09/0708/FUL), a hotel needs assessment by Humberts Leisure, dated March 2009. The application under 09/0708/FUL was submitted before PPS4 (2009) or the accompanying guidance on need were issued. The assessment concludes that there is a need for about 380 additional budget hotel rooms in the city by 2020 (or 470 on the basis of a higher growth scenario).

8.7 The local residents’ associations have raised concerns about

the applicants’ assessment of need. The associations assert that the Humberts Leisure report is no longer a sound basis for assessment, and that the size of hotel proposed here is considerably in excess of what is necessary to sustain the

Travelodge business model. Their conclusion is that no convincing case has been made for a hotel of this size.

8.8 The Planning Policy Manager (PPM) makes the following

observations about the needs assessment:

the needs assessment warns that its findings are only valid for a period of six months from March 2009

the Humberts Leisure assessment makes errors in its assumptions about existing provision

further applications for hotel development have since been made.

8.9 The PPM’s advice is that existing and proposed budget room

provision looks set to far exceed the Humberts demand forecasts to 2020. In additional comments submitted after the Planning Policy Manager’s advice was publicly available, the applicants point out that the Humberts study suggested that between 380 and 500 additional budget hotel bedrooms would be required by 2020, and that since this application, taken together with the present application on the MacKays site, and the extant permission for a Travelodge Hotel at Orchard Park would provide only 477 additional rooms, the oversupply referred to by the PPM would not occur. However, this assertion does not take account of the fact that the Premier Inn at Orchard Park (154 rooms) was completed after the Humberts study, and I therefore consider the PPM to be correct on this issue. Notwithstanding this possible overall over-supply, however, her view is that, bearing in mind the advice in Appendix C of the guidance on need, and the fact that the Council’s evidence base on this issue has not been formally updated, provision in more sustainable locations such as this site should be supported, on the basis that they will provide choice and are likely to cater for a non-business market.

8.10 PPS4 (2009) does not require the application of an impact

assessment to arts, culture and tourism development proposals. 8.11 Policies EC5, EC14 and EC15 of PPS4 (2009) require a

sequential approach to the location of tourism facilities, with priority given to city centre locations over edge-of-centre locations, and to brownfield sites over greenfield sites. A sequential assessment was submitted in connection with the previous application (09/0708/FUL), and it is attached to the

report as Appendix H. The sequential assessment lacks clarity about how the potential sites it lists fall within the categories prescribed by the guidance in PPS4. However, I am satisfied that the only possible locations for a substantial hotel development within the city centre lie within other sites in the proposals schedule, all of which are allocated to other uses. My view on this issue is not altered by the fact that other hotel proposals have come forward since 09/0708/FUL was submitted. Only one of these applications was within the city centre, and it was an application for an extension to an existing hotel, which was refused.

8.12 Agents acting on behalf of the owners of the nearby MacKay’s

site on East Road have submitted comments suggesting that although they believe demand for hotel accommodation can sustain new hotel development on both that site and the current application site, the MacKay’s site should be seen as being more preferable in a sequential assessment. I adhere to my view that no currently feasible sites would outscore the present application site sequentially. The application site is brownfield, and stands on the edge of the city centre, (the City Centre, as defined on the 2006 Local Plan Proposals Map, extends to the East Road/Newmarket Road roundabout, 250m west of the application site). conforms to the sequential approach required by PPS4.

8.13 The Planning Policy Manager has not raised concerns about

the concentration of this number of hotel bedrooms in one location, and given the reasonable proximity of this site to the city centre, I do not believe that this aspect of the proposal is in conflict with the principles of sustainability.

8.14 The PPM also takes the view that the proposal for 219

additional budget hotel rooms would help to diversify the range of short-stay accommodation in the city, and would consequently be in accordance with policy 6/3 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

8.15 Notwithstanding the issues raised by the residents’

associations, the Planning Policy Manager adheres to the view that the flaws in the submitted needs assessment do not constitute a reason for refusal and that sequential assessment does not provide a preferable site for such a development. She considers that the principle of this application for hotel use is

acceptable. I accept this policy advice. Furthermore, in my view the benefit of this proposal under policy 6/3 is sufficient to justify a departure from the land uses allocated to site 7.01 in the proposals schedule of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Context of site, design and external spaces

8.16 In my view, the proposed building needs to be considered with regard to the following elements: scale and massing, articulation and elevational treatment, materials, relationship with the street, and landscaping.

Scale and massing

8.17 The building proposed in this application is of a significantly

more limited scale than the previous two applications on this site, with a fourth floor parapet height of 15.8m above ground, and solar panels rising to a high point at 17.8m above ground. This compares with a parapet height of 18.6m and a solar panel apex of 20.7m in the previous application (09/0708/FUL). The Planning Inspector, in his decision on the appeal on the adjacent 9-15 Harvest Way site (09/0382/FUL) indicated that since the evidence suggested a very low probability of the extant office consent on this site being implemented, it should be accorded relatively low weight in considering current applications, but, nonetheless, I note that the hotel building proposed here is not only much more slender than the consented office building, but both the fourth floor parapet height and the overall highest point are lower than the equivalent heights of the consented building. In my view, notwithstanding the comments made in representations, this proposal addresses previous concerns about excessive height, and is of a height appropriate to the Newmarket Road context which will not be unduly visually dominant when seen from streets in the Riverside area, nor stand out obtrusively in views from Elizabeth Way bridge. This view is shared by the Joint Urban Design Team, Design and Conservation Panel, and the Principal Landscape Architect.

Articulation and elevational treatment

8.18 The overall mass of the proposed building is divided into two

parts by the central core area containing the entrances, foyer, stairwell and lifts. The two sections each have a flat elevation

on the south side, but each half of the northern elevation facing Newmarket Road is further articulated by projecting bays. There are two of these in the east wing, each 13m wide, and one in the west wing, 15m wide. The pattern of vertical buttresses rising from ground to third floors, which define these bays, would also be carried round the curved east end of the building. I concur with the view of the urban design team that these design features give a strong vertical rhythm to the elevation of the building which draws on patterns evident nearby in the city, and that this is both successful in integrating the building into its local context and helpful in breaking up the perceived mass of the building.

8.19 I am also of the view that the more restrained canopy and

entrance on Newmarket Road, and the reconfigured lounge area in the ground floor of the north elevation would both be successful in bringing greater vitality to the Newmarket Road frontage, without detracting from the coherence of the building elevation or the landscaping scheme.

Materials

8.20 In marked contrast to the previous two applications on this site,

the present application proposes that the external surfaces be clad mainly in buff brick on the lower three storeys, and cedar boarding on the upper two storeys. In my view this selection of materials is appropriate. The visual impact of these materials, especially as the timber weathers, will make a much stronger allusion to the character of existing buildings in the locality. The warmth of the two materials, and the less manufactured quality of their surfaces will assist in diminishing the building’s perceived mass and integrating it into the locality.

Relationship with the street

8.21 It is acknowledged that the Newmarket Road frontage of this

site at present is a bleak and unattractive environment, in which the buildings play no role in enlivening the street. In my view it is important that any building proposed here improves this situation by creating an active edge to the street. This application achieves that aim by including not only a second entrance to the hotel on Newmarket Road, but also an 11m wide ground-floor lounge area to the west of the lift and stair core. This would make a significant contribution to enlivening

the street; it would be evident as an ‘active’ area during the day and the evening and would allow natural surveillance of the street.

8.22 On Harvest Way, the delivery bay and the car park ramp stand

alongside each other in the southwest corner of the site. The bin stores would stand just to the west of the delivery bay. These elements are essential components of any hotel operation, but their design can be difficult to accommodate into an acceptable streetscape. Notwithstanding the refusal of permission for 09/0708/FUL, these elements of the design in that application were seen as acceptable, and the present application follows the configuration shown therein. This layout reduces the negative impact of these elements to an acceptable level, by extending the roof of the restaurant over the car park ramp, and providing sliding timber gates to enclose the service yard and waste store. This configuration avoids creating the hostile area of poor visual quality on Harvest Way. In my view this element of the current scheme would have a neutral impact on the street scene, and would not detract from the approach to the hotel’s main entrance.

8.23 In my view, the proposal would create attractive built frontages

on both Harvest Way and Newmarket Road, which would enhance the townscape. The proposed north entrance and ground-floor lounge area would promote natural surveillance, and create an active edge on the street, and the building would conform to the requirements of policy 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Landscaping

8.24 The Principal Landscape Architect supports the application,

commenting particularly on the appropriateness of the street trees proposed. Her main concerns are about the appropriateness of the hard landscaping materials proposed. I concur with her reservations about resin-bonded gravel, and I agree that conditions are necessary to safeguard the quality of a number of aspects of the landscape design. I accept the Architectural Liaison Officer’s view that measures should be taken to deter people from cutting through the gap between the proposed hotel and Halfway House, but I do not agree with his recommendations for the removal of public access to the hard paved area to the north of the hotel or the removal of seats. I

consider that, subject to conditions, the submitted landscaping scheme does relate well to the character of the space, the proposed building, and its context, as required by policy 3/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Renewable energy and sustainability

8.25 The application is supported by a renewable energy analysis

which concludes that solar hot water is the most practical renewable energy solutions.

8.26 I am satisfied that the applicants’ proposed strategy for the use

of domestic solar hot water panels is appropriate. Other technologies have been assessed for their suitability.

8.27 Although the Senior Sustainability Officer (SSO) initially

expressed concerns about a discrepancy in the carbon calculations, the applicants have since submitted further information, about the basis of the calculations, and the SSO is now satisfied that the requirements of policy 8/16 would be properly met.

8.28 The site is presently entirely covered by buildings or concrete

hardstanding. All surface water drains to the public surface water sewer in Harvest Way. Under the proposed scheme, 40% of the site will revert to pervious surface. The applicants propose to use pervious paving to the main entrance areas, allowing surface water to be stored and treated in the sub-base and then allowed to infiltrate to the ground. Opportunities to infiltrate surface water from a proportion of the roof area will also be investigated. The proposal will result in a drainage configuration which is considerably more sustainable than the present situation.

8.29 In my opinion the applicants have suitably addressed the issue

of sustainable drainage. At present, it is not possible to tell whether the proposed strategy for energy generation is acceptable, although the expected carbon savings are reasonably close to the 10% threshold. I recommend a condition to ensure that an acceptable solution is submitted to the Council before development commences. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/1 and 8/16 and ‘the City Council’s Sustainable Design and Construction’ SPD (2007).

Disabled access

8.30 The hoist on the north side of the building has been brought

within the envelope of the building, which provides protection from the weather.

8.31 The Access Officer has complimented the applicants on

improvements as a result of previous comments from Disability Panel Access, but suggests that an additional disabled car parking space is required. He raises no other objections.

8.32 In my opinion, subject to conditions requiring an additional

disabled car parking space, the proposal is compliant in respect of disabled access with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7, 3/12 and 6/3.

Residential Amenity

Overshadowing

8.33 Sun path diagrams submitted by the applicants suggest that for

one month either side of the winter solstice, the building would overshadow buildings fronting the opposite side of Newmarket Road in the morning and afternoon (although only to a limited extent at midday). These premises are mostly commercial, however. Site inspection suggests that there are not many ground-floor rooms in residential properties along this side of the road and fewer still extensively used for recreation. By two months from the winter solstice (Feb 21st and Oct 21st) overshadowing in this direction would be limited to early morning. Nearer to the summer solstice than those dates, there would be little, if any, loss of sunlight to other properties. Such overshadowing of residential buildings or gardens to the north of Newmarket Road as would occur would in my view be very minor, and would certainly be confined to the morning and evening of the winter months. I do not consider the limited overshadowing impact of this proposal to be a reason for refusal of the application.

Privacy

8.34 I acknowledge that the pattern of occupancy of a hotel is

different from that of an office building, and that the issue of

overlooking needs to be considered in a different light from that in which the issue was assessed in respect of the previous outline and reserved matters applications. An office building is generally not occupied in the evenings or at weekends, when the occupiers of nearby houses are most likely to be at home; a hotel is occupied at these times. Conversely, however, office workers may spend long periods of the day close to particular windows, and be looking out over the neighbouring area for much of the day, whereas hotel guests are likely to be in their rooms for relatively short periods apart from when they are asleep.

8.35 The proposed hotel would stand 13m to the north of residential

accommodation at Halfway House. A large number of the bedrooms in the eastern wing of the hotel would overlook the north side of the Halfway House site. However the windows on both floors of the northern gable ends of the Halfway House building appear to be kitchens. Hotel guests would not overlook the windows of any living rooms or bedrooms in Halfway House except at such an oblique angle as effectively to prevent vision into the rooms. The lawned areas to the east and southwest of Halfway House would be largely screened from the hotel windows by trees and the Halfway House building itself. Neither these lawned areas nor the remainder of the Halfway House site appear to be much used for recreational purposes, and they are in any case, entirely open to public view from the street. I do not consider that residents of Halfway House would suffer any significant loss of privacy if the proposed hotel were constructed.

8.36 Houses on the south side of New Street, from 146 to 172 would

be overlooked from hotel bedrooms. However this would be at a distance of at least 56m, and would only be of front gardens and windows which already face the street. Rear gardens of the few residential properties on the north side of Newmarket Road would be screened from the hotel by the bulk of those properties. Habitable rooms in the rear section of 1 Godesdone Road would be overlooked by hotel bedrooms through the gap between 181 and 185 Newmarket Road, and to some extent over the roofs of the frontage buildings. However, these windows at No.1 are already visible from the tile shop car park, which is open during working hours, and also from rear windows of 179 and 181 Newmarket Road. There would be some overlooking of gardens in Godesdone Road, but this

would be at a distance of at least 40m. (There is a considerable degree of mutual overlooking between houses and neighbouring gardens in the street at present.) Rear windows of Godesdone Road houses would not be overlooked because of the orientation of the street. Rear windows in Beche Court would be overlooked from the proposed hotel. This would be at a distance of at least 40m, and mostly from an oblique angle. Rear windows in Beche Road would be approximately 95m from the overlooking windows in the hotel.

8.37 In summary, it is the case that overlooking of some garden

areas and windows of habitable rooms would be possible from the proposed hotel. In almost all cases, however, this would be at a distance of at least 40m, and in most cases considerably further. I do not consider that views from this distance would diminish privacy to such a level as to warrant refusal of the application. In those few cases where the distance is closer, particularly Halfway House, I do not consider the nature of the overlooking to be such as seriously to harm privacy.

Visual domination

8.38 The existing buildings on the site are approximately 8m in

height. The proposed building, as I have indicated above, would rise to a fourth floor parapet at 15.8m above ground, with solar panels in the centre of the roof rising to a high point at 17.8m above ground.

8.39 At its closest point, the Halfway House building is situated 13m

from the proposed hotel building, and 10.5m from the external timber trellis on the south elevation. At this distance, the visual impact of the bulk of the hotel would be considerable. However, as I have indicated above when considering the issue of privacy, all the rooms which face towards the hotel in this building appear to be small kitchens. I do not consider that any significant harm to the amenity of the occupiers of this building would be caused, because the bedrooms and living rooms of the units concerned face east or west, and views of the hotel building would be oblique. The Halfway House site is not flanked by buildings on its other three sides; there is a sense of openness to the site, and I do not consider that the presence of a much larger building to the rear would be overbearing or cause an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

8.40 On the north side, the proposed hotel would be very visible from habitable rooms in a number of locations, including the south side of New Street, the south side of Beche Road, Beche Court, some side windows in Godesdone Road, rear windows on Silverwood Close, and units on the former Simpers rope works site. However, as I have indicated above, all these locations would be at least 40m from the proposed building. The hotel would be highly visible, and representations received suggest that its visual impact in some of these locations would be unwelcome, but at the distances involved, I do not consider it reasonable to describe the impact as overbearing or unduly dominant.

8.41 It has been suggested that the proposed hotel building would be

a more visually dominant building than the office use previously permitted, because there would be a greater glazed area, and because the hotel would be lit at night, while an office building would not. It is difficult to assess the difference between the levels of glazing in the two buildings, but I have made an approximate calculation that above ground floor level, the proposed hotel would have about 280m2 of glazing on the Newmarket Road elevation, because the windows would be relatively narrow, whereas the office building previously granted reserved matters approval would have about 450m2. I acknowledge that there would be some light from the hotel 24 hours a day, but it must also be acknowledged that office buildings are usually lit for much longer than the working hours of the organizations using them. I do not consider that the visual impact of glazing, either during daylight hours or after dark, would be as great in the building proposed here as in the building previously approved.

Noise and disruption

8.42 I acknowledge that the proposed hotel would be in use for 24

hours a day, and that it would probably result in more vehicle movements in Harvest Way. Some noise would be generated by arrivals and departures. However, I do not consider it likely that the level of noise and of disruption caused by vehicle lights would be particularly intense. There would clearly be a significant number of taxi movements round Harvest Way and New Street in the evening, and some at night, but I do not consider that these would lead to unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance from lights. Given the distance of residential

premises from the application site, I do not consider that any significant harm is likely to result through noise or disruption.

8.43 In my opinion, subject to the conditions which I recommend

regarding environmental issues such as noise, and construction hours, the proposal adequately respects the residential amenity of its neighbours and in this respect I consider that it is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/7.

Refuse Arrangements

8.44 A substantial area (17m2) of covered waste bin storage is proposed in the south-east corner of the site. In my view the location of waste storage space is appropriate and its extent is sufficient. The Environmental Services department suggests that a condition is sufficient to ensure waste storage is satisfactory. I concur with this view.

8.45 In my opinion, subject to condition, the proposal is compliant

with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12.

Traffic and transport

8.46 Cambridgeshire County Council has no objections to this application on transport grounds, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement. The bases for this decision are as follows:

The Transport Assessment Manager considers that the

survey data collected from Travelodge hotels in Brighton and Bath in May 2010 are a satisfactory framework for assessment of weekday vehicle movements.

These data suggest peak vehicle flows from the proposal

would be very little different from those of the extant office permission (4 trips fewer in am peak; 11trips more in pm peak).

The proposed hotel is predicted to generate a maximum of

51 two-way vehicle trips per hour on Saturdays

The traffic generated by the proposed hotel would represent maximum percentage increases as follows.

Weekdays Saturdays Flows along Newmarket Road +3% +1.9% Flows along Coldhams Lane * +2.1% Trafffic using Newmarket Road/ Coldhams Lane junction

+0.7% *

Trafffic using New Street/ Coldhams Lane junction

+1.3% +2.6%

(*The Transport Assessment Manager does not specify these figures)

The Transport Assessment Manager is satisfied that a Hotel Transport management Plan to minimise car use can be implemented.

The County Council’s view is that the predicted increases in

traffic flows are not sufficient reason to oppose the proposed development.

8.47 I acknowledge that the Inspector in the appeal on the

neighbouring site to the west has suggested that undue weight should not be given to the extant office consent. However, I note that the inspector’s comments were made with reference to building height. The office consent remains extant and the fact that the Council has previously deemed acceptable the traffic flows it is predicted to generate is a material consideration. The Inspector made no comment about acceptable levels of traffic, and I do not consider that his decision weighs against the County Council’s advice on this matter to any degree.

8.48 Notwithstanding the very strong opposition to the proposal on

transport grounds from individual objectors and the three residents’ associations, I am not persuaded that there is any reason to reject the advice of the County Council on this issue. In my view, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, the transport impact of the proposal is acceptable, and in accordance with policies 8/2 and 8/3 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Highway Safety

8.49 Notwithstanding the concerns raised in representations, the Highway Authority has expressed no concerns on the issue of highway safety. I concur with this view. I acknowledge that the junctions at Newmarket Road/Coldhams Lane and Coldhams Lane/New Street are frequently congested, but I do not consider that the addition of further traffic implies any greater risk to safety. I do not consider that a greater volume of traffic in Harvest Way will result in increased danger to cyclists in New Street.

8.50 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/2.

Car and Cycle Parking

8.51 The proposal includes 48 car parking spaces in the basement (of which three would be suitable for disabled users) and three car parking spaces at ground level off Harvest Way (including one further disabled space). The City Council’s Car Parking Standards set the maximum level of car parking permissible for a hotel outside the CPZ at two spaces for every three bedrooms and one space for each resident member of staff. The application does not state how many members of staff would be resident. The maximum number of car parking spaces permitted for the hotel rooms would be 146.

8.52 The number of car parking spaces provided is considerably

below the maximum permitted, regardless of the number of resident staff. Both local plan policy and government guidance seek to limit the provision of non-residential car parking space, in order to encourage the use of means of transport other than the private car. PPG13 specifically advises that developers should not be required to provide more car parking space than they themselves wish, and the principle that the provision of non-residential parking space within urban areas should be limited is supported by policy EC18 of PPS4 (2009). In my view, the level of car parking proposed is acceptable, and in line with policy 8/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). Limited on-site car parking can act as a disincentive to the use of the private car if guests are actively encouraged to use other means of transport. The draft Transport Management Plan submitted includes a considerable number of measures which will help to

do this, but a legal agreement will be necessary in order to ensure the robustness of the plan.

8.53 I note the very strong opposition of local residents on this issue.

I share the view of residents that the limited quantity of on-street parking spaces in and around Harvest Way and New Street could be placed under additional pressure by hotel guests, although this possibility can be reduced by measures outlined in the draft Transport Management Plan.

8.54. However, while the residential streets around New Street

remain outside CPZ controls, the car parking space there will remain vulnerable to occupation at all times, including overnight, by users other than the local residents. Preservation of on-street car parking space cannot, in my view, be secured by limiting development on the current application site.

8.55 It is nonetheless essential, in my opinion, that the robust Travel

Plan secured as part of a Section 106 agreement in connection with this application, directly addresses the issue of discouraging the use of private cars by guests as well as staff.

8.56 The City Council’s Cycle Parking Standards require two cycle

parking spaces for every ten bedrooms and one cycle parking space for every two members of staff. The application proposes 52 cycle parking spaces in the basement and a further 12 at ground floor level. This is a total of 64 spaces; 44 spaces are required by the total number of rooms, leaving 20 spaces for staff. The application indicates 20 full-time staff and 55 part-time staff, but does not give a full-time equivalent total. The spaces provided would be sufficient for a full-time equivalent staff total of 40. To fall below this threshold, the part-time staff would need to average no more than 0.36 of full time. This seems slightly low to me, but since the number of additional spaces actually required is probably fairly small, a satisfactory solution could be ensured by an appropriate condition.

8.57 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/10, provided that a Green Travel Plan is secured by condition or legal agreement, and compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/6 provided that any shortcomings in the cycle parking provision are eliminated by means of an appropriate condition.

Environmental Health issues

8.58 Most of the environmental health issues raised by this application, including ground contamination, can be addressed by conditions. The site lies within the Air Quality Management Area however, and the Head of Environmental Services (HES) has advised that although the increased set back of the building proposed here would avoid exposing future guests and employees to unacceptably poor levels of air quality, the proposal would nonetheless conflict with policy 4/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) because the development itself, would have a small adverse impact on air quality within the AQMA. He therefore recommends refusal

8.59 The same issue with regard to air quality was considered in the

appeal on the adjoining site to the west, 09/0382/FUL. In that case, a worsening of air quality of a similar limited magnitude was cited as a reason for refusal. Although the Inspector dismissed the appeal, he made it clear that the air quality issue on its own would not have provided a sufficient reason to do so. The Inspector acknowledged that cumulative impact must be considered, but he took the view that to refuse an application on the basis of an air quality impact of this magnitude would conflict with advice in PPG23 that where possible, mitigating measures should be sought as an alternative to sterilising the development potential of sites on the basis of air quality impact.

8.60 The Inspector’s decision gives a clear steer on this issue, a fact

acknowledged in the advice of the HES. In my view, although the likely increase in air pollution produced by the proposed development would represent an infringement of policy 4/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) if compared with the existing use, the adverse impact is not of sufficient magnitude to be considered a reason for refusal of this application.

Third Party Representations

8.61 I have addressed all the issues raised in representations other

than the following:

Pedestrian routes through the site Restoration of the Abbey Church

8.62 The establishment of pedestrian routes through this site is an aspiration of the Eastern Gate Visioning Document, and one which has been promoted by the Joint Urban Design Team for some time. Officers are agreed, however, that such a feature is only of value, and only in accordance with policy 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), if the routes created are of high quality, with the directness, openness and level of natural surveillance necessary to ensure they work well, and are in accordance with the principles of good design contained in PPS1, and the advice contained in Safer Places: the Planning System and Crime Prevention (2004). It has been clear since an early stage in the development of proposals for this site that the applicants do not feel able to make available sufficient space on site for that aim to be achieved. There would be clear advantages of such a route or routes, but their establishment is not rated a high priority by the local community, and I do not consider the absence of such routes could be sustained as a reason for refusal.

8.63 A contribution to restoration works on the Abbey Church from

the developer would be welcomed by many parties, but it is not essential to make the application acceptable, and the inclusion of such a contribution could not be defended as part of a Section 106 agreement.

Planning Obligation Strategy

8.64 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) provides a framework

for expenditure of financial contributions collected through planning obligations. The applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a S106 planning obligation in accordance with the requirements of the Strategy. The proposed development triggers the requirement for the following community infrastructure:

Transport

8.65 Contributions towards catering for additional trips generated by

proposed development are sought where 50 or more (all mode) trips on a daily basis are likely to be generated. The site lies within the Eastern Corridor Area Transport Plan and contributions according to the appropriate formula would be required, with an additional contribution to reflect the additional traffic generated.

8.66 The application includes the provision of land along the northern

and eastern edges of the site to enable highway improvements on Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane. The County Council also considers that it is necessary for the applicants to contribute towards improving specific infrastructure. The County Council’s initial advice was that a contribution to the cost of the updating of the pedestrian crossing on Newmarket Road should be made. Since this project has now been completed, relying on finance from other sources, the applicants have suggested that the contribution should instead be made to modernising the signal sytem of the Newmarket Road/ Coldhams Lane/ River Lane junction, installing a responsive element to the control of the signals which would have the potential to increase the capacity of the junction. Advice from the County Transport Assessment Manager is that this proposal would be supported.

8.67 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure this infrastructure provision, the proposal is in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1, P9/8 and P9/9 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 8/3 and 10/1.

Public Realm

8.68 The proposal includes a substantial on-site contribution to an

improved public realm on Newmarket Road, including wider paved area, substantial soft landscaping adjacent to the building, hard landscaping materials, and large street trees. In my view, it would not be reasonable in these circumstances to seek contributions to other public realm improvements.

8.69 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure this infrastructure provision, the proposal is in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 10/1. Public Art

8.70 The proposed development requires a contribution to be made

towards the provision of public art. The applicants have submitted a Public Art Delivery Plan. The view of the Public Art

Co-ordinator is that this should be supported. The approach will need to be secured within a Section 106 agreement.

8.71 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure the public art requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2004), the proposal is in compliance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and 9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 10/1.

Conclusion 8.72 It is my view that the planning obligation is necessary, directly

related to the development and fairly and reasonably in scale and kind to the development and therefore the Planning Obligation passes the tests set by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 I consider that the principle of hotel development on this site is

in accordance with policy, and that the general height and mass of the proposed hotel should be considered as appropriate even if little weight is attached to the extant permission for office development on this site. This view of the design submitted for this current application is shared by the Joint Urban Design Team and Design and Conservation Panel, although I acknowledge that the majority of responses from neighbouring occupiers take a different view. I also consider that the proposal avoids causing any significant harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

9.2 It is also my view that the changes made to the proposal from

that submitted under 09/0708/FUL, which was refused by Planning Committee, resolve the design shortcomings of that earlier scheme. The significantly reduced height, the increased setback of the western arm to allow more space for trees, the redesign of the eastern end to turn the corner more successfully, the reconfiguration of the north entrance, and the use of a palette of materials which responds more sympathetically to the local context are sufficient to ensure that the building meets the requirements of policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12.

9.3 Despite their agreement that the application represents a significant improvement on that submitted under 09/0708/FUL, the three local residents’ associations remain opposed to this proposal, and their representation on the matter (Appendix G) indicates the three main grounds of their opposition. I have addressed these issues above: excessive hotel capacity (paragraphs 8.6-8.15); building height (paragraph 8.17); traffic (paragraphs 8.46-8.48).

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement by 30th January 2010, and subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 51 of

the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials

to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 3/14)

3. Before starting any brick or stone work, a sample panel of the

facing materials to be used shall be erected on site to establish the detail of bonding, coursing and colour and type of jointing and shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The quality of finish and materials incorporated in any approved sample panel(s), which shall not be demolished prior to completion of development, shall be maintained throughout the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the quality and colour of the detailing of the brickwork/stonework and jointing is acceptable and maintained throughout the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/12)

4. No development shall take place until a traffic management

plan for the demolition phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Demolition shall proceed only according to the approved plan.

Reason: To avoid an unacceptable transport impact.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/2) 5. Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning

authority in writing no construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties.

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 6. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details

of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

I) contractors access arrangements for vehicles, plant and

personnel, ii) contractors site storage area/compound, iii) the means of moving, storing and stacking all building

materials, plant and equipment around and adjacent to the site, iv) the arrangements for parking of contractors vehicles and

contractors personnel vehicles. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance

with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties during the construction period. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

7. Except with the prior agreement of the local planning authority

in writing, there should be no collection or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0700 hrs and 1900 hrs on Monday - Saturday and there should be no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours. (Cambridge

Local Plan (2006) policies 4/13 and 6/10) 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby

approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed, a comprehensive construction programme identifying each and every phase of the development and confirming construction activities to be undertaken in each phase and a timetable for their execution shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details unless the local planning authority agrees to the variation of any detail in advance and in writing.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours (Cambridge

Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4)

9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), the applicant shall submit a report in writing, regarding the demolition / construction noise and vibration impact associated with this development, for approval by the local authority. The report shall be in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 'Noise and Vibration Control On Construction and Open Sites', especially Part I: 1997 'Code Of Practice (COP) for basic information and procedures for noise and vibration control', Part 2: 'Guide to noise and vibration control legislation for construction and demolition including road construction and maintenance' and Part 4: 'COP for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations', (if the construction process is to involve piling operations). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbours, and

to avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13)

10. In the event of the foundations for the proposed development

requiring piling, prior to the development taking place the applicant shall provide the local authority with a report / method statement for approval detailing the type of piling and mitigation measures to be taken to protect local residents noise and or vibration. Potential noise and vibration levels at the nearest noise sensitive locations shall be predicted in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 : Part 4: 'COP for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations', Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Due to the proximity of this site to existing residential premises

and other noise sensitive premises, impact pile driving is not recommended. Consent for piling will only be granted where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater.

Reason: To avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

policy 4/13)

11. No development shall commence until a programme of measures to minimise the spread of airborne dust and mud from the site during the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours and highway

users, and to avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 4/13 and 8/2)

12. Confirmation or not that an on site concrete crusher will be used

during the demolition stage will be required. If not, confirmation of an appropriate alternative procedure that will be used will be required.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbours, and

to avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13)

13. No development shall take place until details of site lighting

during the construction period have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Lighting shall be installed only according to the agreed details.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbours, and

to avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 4/13)

14. No development approved by this permission shall be

commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the LPA for approval.

(a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk

study to be submitted to the LPA for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to investigations commencing on site.

(b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

(c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the LPA. The LPA shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

(d) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance.

(e) If, during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the LPA.

(f) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from site.

Reason: To avoid adverse effects of pollution. (Cambridge

Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13) 15. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is

permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

policy 4/13)

16. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and implementation of pollution control to the water environment has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed according to the approved plans.

Reason: To avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

policy 4/13) 17. No development shall take place until a scheme for the

provision and implementation of foul drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed according to the approved plans.

Reason: To avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

policy 4/13) 18. No development shall take place until a scheme for the

provision and implementation of surface water drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed according to the approved plans.

Reason: To avoid pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

policy 4/13) 19. Before the development/use hereby permitted is commenced,

details of equipment for the purpose of extraction and/or filtration of fumes and or odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved extraction/filtration scheme shall be installed before the use hereby permitted is commenced.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 20. Before the development/use hereby permitted is commenced, a

scheme for the insulation of the building(s) and/or plant in order to minimise the level of noise emanating from the said building(s) and/or plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme as approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is commenced.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 21. The rating level of the plant noise emitted from the site shall not

exceed the existing background noise level during 1 hour at any time between 0700-2300hrs. It should also not exceed the existing background noise level during 5 minutes at any time between 2300-0700hrs. The noise level shall be determined at the nearest boundary to noise-sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1990.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13) 22. No development shall take place until full details of both hard

and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme. The submission shall provide full details of the arrangements to allow for extensive root growth of trees within the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that

suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

23. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaped areas are maintained in

a healthy condition in the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

24. A landscape management plan, including long term design

objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that

suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

25. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details, and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendation of the appropriate British Standard or other recognised code of good practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed by the local planning authority in writing. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure provision, establishment and maintenance

of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved design. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

26. Details of any proposed floodlighting or external lighting shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan

2006 policies 3/11 and 4/15) 27. The approved facilities for the storage of bicycles shall be

provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences and shall not be altered without the written agreement of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage

of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6) 28. The hotel shall not be occupied until a gate has been erected to

the service yard in accordance with details which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), the gate shall not thereafter be altered without the express permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the gate is

appropriate, and no hazard to highway safety is created. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 8/2)

29. The hotel shall not be occupied until parking spaces for

disabled users have been laid out and marked in accordance with the approved details. Arrangements for car parking for disabled users shall not be altered except with the written agreement of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate disabled parking space is

provided. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/10) 30. No development shall take place until a traffic management

plan for the hotel drop-off area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drop-off area shall be used only according to the approved plan.

Reason: To avoid an unacceptable transport impact.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/2) 31. No development shall take place until a servicing plan for the

hotel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The servicing of the hotel shall take place only according to the approved plan.

Reason: To avoid an unacceptable transport impact.

(Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/2) 32. No occupation of the hotel shall take place until full details of

the arrangements for the storage and collection of waste and recycling from the hotel use have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The arrangements shall be implemented prior to occupation, and shall not be changed except with the written approval of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory waste storage. (Cambridge

Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12) 33. No occupation of the hotel shall take place until a

comprehensive scheme for ensuring the security of the hotel’s basement car park and its entrances and access points has been implemented, in accordance with details previously submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved measures shall not be altered except with the written agreement of the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid the threat of crime, and improve community

safety. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/7) 34. No development shall take place until a Travel Plan for the hotel

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented and monitored according to the provisions approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid an unacceptable transport impact, and to

increase sustainability, limit pollution, and mitigate any air quality impact of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/1, 4/13, 4/14 and 8/2)

35. No development shall take place within the site until the

applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate archaeological

investigation of the site has been implemented before development commences. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/9)

36. At the time approval under the Building Regulations is sought

for the hotel hereby approved, accurate energy requirement calculations shall be resubmitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The proposed solar panels shall be configured to meet the 10% carbon savings total required under policy 8/16 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 on the basis of the agreed energy requirement calculations. The solar panels shall be fully installed and operational prior to the occupation of the approved building and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with a maintenance programme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The solar panels and the systems associated with them shall remain fully operational in accordance with the approved maintenance programme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/16).

INFORMATIVE: To satisfy the condition above relating to noise insulation, the noise level from all plant and equipment, vents etc (collectively) associated with this application should not raise the existing background level (L90) by more than 3 dB(A) (i.e. the rating level of the plant needs to match the existing background level). This requirement applies both during the day (0700 to 2300 hrs over any one hour period) and night time (2300 to 0700 hrs over any one 5 minute period), at the boundary of the premises subject to this application and having regard to noise sensitive premises. Tonal/impulsive noise frequencies should be eliminated or at least considered in any assessment and should carry an additional 5 dB(A) correction. This is to guard against any creeping background noise in the area and prevent unreasonable noise disturbance to other premises.

It is recommended that the agent/applicant submits a noise

prediction survey/report in accordance with the principles of BS4142: 1997 “Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas” or similar. Noise levels shall be predicted at the boundary having regard to neighbouring residential premises.

Such a survey / report should include: a large scale plan of the

site in relation to neighbouring premises; noise sources and measurement / prediction points marked on plan; a list of noise sources; details of proposed noise sources / type of plant such as: number, location, sound power levels, noise frequency spectrums, noise directionality of plant, noise levels from duct intake or discharge points; details of noise mitigation measures (attenuation details of any intended enclosures, silencers or barriers); description of full noise calculation procedures; noise levels at a representative sample of noise sensitive locations and hours of operation.

Any report shall include raw measurement data so that

conclusions may be thoroughly evaluated and calculations checked.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded that,

notwithstanding the content of illustrative perspective and other drawings, the permission hereby granted makes no provision for signage, and that any signage required on the building may require advertisement consent.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that if the premises

are intended to provide alcohol, regulated entertainment or food after 11pm or before 5am it may require a Premise Licence under the Licensing Act 2003. The applicant is advised to contact The Licensing Team of the Refuse and Environmental Service at Cambridge City Council Cambridge City Council on telephone number (01223) 457899 for further information.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that as the premises

are intended to be run as a food business the applicant is reminded that under the Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended) the premises will need to registered with Cambridge City Council. In order to avoid additional costs it is recommended that the applicant ensure that the kitchen, food preparation and foods storage areas comply with food hygiene legislation, before construction starts. Contact the Food and Occupational Safety (FOS) Team of the Refuse and Environmental Service at Cambridge City Council on telephone number (01223) 457890 for further information.

INFORMATIVE: To satisfy the condition above relating to fume

extraction and filtration, details should be provided in accordance with Annex B of the, 'Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems', prepared by Netcen on behalf of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) dated January 2005 available at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/research/kitc

henexhaust/documents/kitchenreport.pdf INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded of their duty under

the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 to ensure that the that all significant risks related to the design and operation of the premises are minimised.

INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in

conjunction with the associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

INFORMATIVE: New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained from The Considerate Contractor project Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121).

2. Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head of Development Services, and the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by 30th January 2011 it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason(s).

The proposed development does not make appropriate

provision for transport mitigation measures, the public realm, or public art, in accordance with policies 3/7, 8/2, or 8/3 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and policies P6/1, P9/8 and P9/9 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, and Public Art SPD 2010.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 Under Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972, the following are “background papers” for each report on a planning application: 1. The planning application and plans; 2. Any explanatory or accompanying letter or document from the

applicant; 3. Comments of Council departments on the application; 4. Comments or representations by third parties on the application

as referred to in the report plus any additional comments received before the meeting at which the application is considered; unless (in each case) the document discloses “exempt or confidential information”

5. Any Structure Plan, Local Plan or Council Policy Document referred to in individual reports.

These papers may be inspected by contacting John Summers (Ext.7103) in the Planning Department.

Appendix A CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL The Guildhall, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Ref: C/02/0739 _______________________________________________________ Januarys Chartered Surveyors York House Dukes Court 54-62 Newmarket Road Cambridge CB58DZ _____________________________________________________

The Council hereby grant outline planning permission for Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of residential units (maximum of 123 units), offices (Class B1 (a)) (maximum 6,780 sq.m), managed workspace (research and development/light industry) (Class B1 (b) or (c)) (maximum 360 sq.m), community centre (Class D2) (maximum 466 sq.m), basement and surface car parking (maximum 207 spaces), cycle parking, new access roads and public amenity areas. at Land At Eastern Court And 9-15 Harvest Way Cambridge in accordance with your application received 8th July 2002 and the plans, drawings and documents which form part of the application, subject to the conditions set out below:

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before

the expiration of five years form the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Approval of the details of design and external appearance of the

buildings and the landscaping of the site (herein after called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure that all necessary details are acceptable.

(Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2, BE4 and TR27)

4. No development shall take place within the area indicated - until

the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate archaeological

investigation of the site has been implemented before development commences. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE40 and BE41)

5. Before the development/use hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for the insulation of the building(s) and/or plant in order to minimise the level of noise emanating from the said building(s) and/or plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme as approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is commenced.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.

(Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2) 6. Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning

authority in writing no construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties.

(Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2) 7. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details

of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

I) contractors access arrangements for vehicles, plant and

personnel, ii) contractors site storage area/compound, iii) the means of moving, storing and stacking all building

materials, plant and equipment around and adjacent to the site, iv) the arrangements for parking of contractors vehicles and

contractors personnel vehicles. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance

with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties

during the construction period. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2)

8. Notwithstanding the approved details no more than 50 car parking spaces for use by the commercial element of the scheme shall be provided on site.

Reason: To ensure that there is no adverse impact on the

highway network. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy TR27) 9. No development shall commence until a scheme for a provision

of foul and surface drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring

the provision of a satisfactory means of water disposal and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy EO3)

10. No development shall take place until a scheme for the

provision and implementation of ground contamination investigation, assessment and remediation has been submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification at such time(s) as may be specified in the approved scheme.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of pollution to the water

environment. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy EO3) 11. Notwithstanding the approved drawings the access to the

basement car park shall be from the east ramp only and egress from the west ramp unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.(Cambridge Local

Plan 1996 policy TR27)

12. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the on-site storage facilities for waste including waste for recycling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall identify the specific positions of where wheelie bins, recycling boxes or any other means of storage will be stationed and the arrangements for the disposal of waste. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be retained thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers

and in the interests of visual amenity.(Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2 and BE4)

13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning

authority there shall be no off-site storage of waste including waste for recycling associated with the use hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridgeshire and

Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2 and BE4)

14. No live music shall be played in the community centre hereby

permitted. Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjacent residential

properties (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2) 15. If amplified music is played within the community centre hereby

permitted this shall be background only. Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjacent residential

properties (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2). 16. No development shall commence until such time that a regime

for the monitoring of noise during the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.(Cambridge Local

Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2)

17. No development shall commence until a method statement detailing the type of piling and mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity. (Cambridge Local

Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2) 18. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced,

including any works of demolition, details of proposed wheel washing and other mitigation measures in relation to dust suppression shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity. (Cambridge Local

Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and TR27)) 19. Surface water run-off from impermeable vehicle parking areas

shall be passed through an approved petrol/oil bypass interception facility before being discharged to any surface water sewer.

Reason: To prevent water pollution. (Cambridge Local Plan

1996 policy EO3) 20. The community centre building hereby approved shall be used

for a community use and for no other purpose unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and because the use of the

building for any other purpose would require re-examination of its impact. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy CS2)

INFORMATIVE: Any works affecting the public highway must

be completed to Highway Authority standards, and the costs arising from these shall be borne by the Developer.

INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in

conjunction with the associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that any noise created by air handling units associated with the commercial use should not exceed background levels or not raised by more than 3dBA to protect the amenity of the premises adjacent to the site.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to contact the

Cleansing Department, Cambridge City Council, Mill Road, Cambridge for advice on waste collection arrangements.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the internal layout

of the proposed residential units facing Newmarket Road and those above the community centre may need to be modified in order to satisfy the requirements of Cambridge City Council's Environmental Health & Waste Strategy Department.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to contact the Asset

Development Engineering Team at Anglian Water for advice on the method and point of foul and surface water connections to the respective public sewers.

INFORMATIVE: New development can sometimes cause

inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained from The Considerate Contractor project Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121).

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to consider the

provision of lifetime homes within the development.

Appendix B CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL The Guildhall, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Ref: 06/0373/REM ________________________________________________________ Januarys Chartered Surveyors York House Dukes Court 54-62 Newmarket Road Cambridge CB5 8DZ ________________________________________________________

The Council hereby grant approval of reserved matters for Phase one reserved matters application persuant to outline permission C/02/0739/OP for office (class B1) development. at Land At 146/150, 180 And 190 Newmarket Road Cambridge in accordance with your application received 5th April 2006 and the plans, drawings and documents which form part of the application, subject to the conditions set out below: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 51 of

the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No demolition work shall take place until confirmation that an on-site concrete crusher will be used during the demolition stage has been provided to the local planning authority. If not, confirmation of an appropriate alternative procedure that will be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

(Cambridge Local Plan 1996, policy BE2) 3. No development shall commence until details of facilities for the

covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage

of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy TR18) 4. No development shall take place until samples of the materials

to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2, BE4 and BE8)

5. Before starting any brick or stone work, a sample panel of the

facing materials to be used shall be erected on site to establish the detail of bonding, coursing and colour and type of jointing and shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The quality of finish and materials incorporated in any approved sample panel(s), which shall not be demolished prior to the completion of the development, shall be maintained throughout the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the quality and colour of the detailing of the brickwork/stonework and jointing is acceptable and maintained throughout the development. (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2 and BE4)

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that conditions

attached to the outline planning permission, reference C/02/0739/OP that are relevant to this application and should be discharged.

Reasons for Approval 1. This development has been approved, conditionally, because

subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development Plan, particularly the following policies:

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P1/3,

P8/1 and P8/8; Cambridge Local Plan (1996): BE1, BE2, BE4, BE13, BE26,

ET7, TR18, TR22 and TR27; Cambridge Redeposit Draft Local Plan (2004 as amended): 3/1,

3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 7/1, 7/2, 8/6 and 8/10 2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other

material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.

Appendix C

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL The Guildhall, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Ref:09/0708/FUL ________________________________________________________ Mr Justin Bainton 7 Dukes Court 54-62 Newmarket Road Cambridge CB5 8DZ ________________________________________________________

The Council hereby refuse permission for Erection of 219 bed hotel and restaurant (following demolition of existing buildings), together with associated infrastructure. at 180-190 Newmarket Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB5 8HF in accordance with your application received 30th July 2009 and the plans, drawings and documents which form part of the application, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development, because of its height, scale, mass,

limited articulation and design, would have an overpowering and negative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. In particular the building would be an unacceptably dominant form in Newmarket Road, having a detrimental impact

on the streetscene and in views from and across the Riverside area to the north as a result of its height and configuration in comparison with nearby buildings. In so doing the development fails to respond positively to the site or to the local context, or to the characteristics of the surroundings, and would not therefore be well-integrated with the immediate locality or the wider city. For these reasons, the proposal is contrary to policies ENV6 and ENV 7 of the East of England Plan 2008 and policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/13 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment.

2. Because of the number of daily trips generated by the proposal,

and the high proportion of those trips which would be likely to be undertaken by private motor vehicle or taxi, the development would generate an unacceptable level of additional traffic on the road network locally, which already experiences high volumes of traffic and associated congestion. In addition, because of the low level of off-street car parking provision on site, the proposal fails to make adequate provision to meet the needs of car borne guests, which is likely to result in additional demands being placed upon on-street parking space in an area where competition for parking space is already severe. For both these reasons, the proposal would have an unacceptable transport impact contrary to policy T1 of the East of England Plan 2008 and policies 3/4, 8/2 and 8/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by PPG13 Transport.

3. The proposed development does not make appropriate

provision for transport mitigation measures, public realm improvements and public art in accordance with policies 3/7, 8/3, 9/9 and 10/1 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006; and policies P6/1 and P9/8 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2004, Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2002, and Provision of Public Art as Part of New Development Schemes 2002.

This decision notice relates to the following drawings: 1214 L200P2, 1214 L210P4, 1214 L211P8, 1214 L212P4, 1214 L213P4, 1214 L214P4, 1214 L215P4, 1214 L216P4, 1214 L217P3, 1214 L220P4, 1214 L221P4, 1214 L222P4, 1214 L223P4, 1214 L224P2, 1214 L225P2, 1214 L226P1, 1214 L218P2, 1214 L227P2, 1214 L228P1, 1214 L230P3, 1214 L231P2, 1214 L232P3, 1214 L233P3, 1214 L234P2, 1214 L235P1, 1214 L236P3, 1214 L500P1, A copy of the refused plan(s) is/are kept in the planning application file. For further information please go to www.cambridge.gov.uk/planning to view the ‘Your Decision Notice’ leaflet. If you require a hard copy please contact the Application Support Team on (01223) 457200. Dated: 16 February 2010 Guildhall, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ Director of Environment

Appendix E

Cambridge City Council Design & Conservation Panel

Notes of item 4 of the meeting Wednesday 27th October 2010

Present: - Nicholas Bullock - Chair Terry Gilbert - RTPI Chris Davis - IHBC/RIBA David Grech - English Heritage Carolin Gohler - Cambridge Past, Present & Future Ian Steen - Co-opted member Jon Harris - Co-opted member Officers: - Tony Collins - City Council John Preston - City Council Observers: - Cllr Margaret Wright - City Council Cllr Adam Pogonowski - City Council 4. Presentation – 180-190 Newmarket Road (10/0851/FUL) The erection of 219 bed hotel and restaurant (following demolition of existing buildings), together with associated infrastructure. This has been significantly revised since last seen by the Panel in May 2009 (verdict RED 4, AMBER 4). Presentation by Neil Ruffles and David Graham of Barber Casanovas Ruffles. The Panel’s comments are summarised as follows: Bulk and height. The Panel welcome the reduction in height to 5

storeys, bringing the development within the parameters set out within the City Council’s Eastern Gate Visioning Document.

Long views. While the building remains large, the reduction in its mass means that it is less dominant than the previous scheme when seen from afar.

North faēade. The Panel welcomed the new arrival point for traffic but would prefer a less ‘insistent’ entrance and hoped that this might be achieved by modifying the planning of the entrance area and the vertical link with the under croft parking.

View from Godesdone Road. The Panel noted that the alignment of the hotel entrance with Godesdone Road was off-centre and there was some discussion of the possibility of using this as an opportunity to provide a break in the mass of the building.

The rounded east end. This was welcomed as providing an element of grace and interest to the design.

Rear access ramp. The Panel would have liked to see a detailed section as some felt the ramp as proposed was bulky and intrusive, and there was some discussion about the possibility of the ramp following a longer route to the East. However, the Panel accept that the City Council’s Access Officer is satisfied that previous concerns about disabled access have been addressed.

Solar panels. The Panel hoped that the mass of these would be reduced as much as possible to minimise their impact on the long views.

The Elevations. There was a general welcome to the revised choice of materials for the cladding. However, the size of the fins on the North faēade was questioned, as there was a general feeling that they were too small to be effective and would in any event be shielded from view for much of the year by the trees in front of them.

Landscaping. The Panel was pleased to see that the planting space between the building and Newmarket Road has been greatly increased, allowing room for mature trees. There was general agreement that the planting to the South was improved but the Panel recommended that climbers be placed in the ground - not in planters.

Half Way House. The Panel was disappointed to see that the relationship between the proposed hotel and Half Way House was not covered in the presentation.

Cycle parking. The Panel hoped that this might be moved from its remote location at the end of the car park.

Conclusion The Panel welcomed the reduction in height of the hotel and the significant overall improvements in the design, but recognise that this remains a large, essentially repetitive building that will dominate its surroundings. Its success will depend on the refinement of the design in detail. The Panel are aware that with a budget hotel resources are

inevitably limited, but hope nevertheless that the design team will make further effort to reduce the apparent mass of the scheme. VERDICT – AMBER (4), GREEN (3)

Reminder

CABE ‘traffic light’ definitions:

GREEN: a good scheme, or one that is acceptable subject to minor improvements

AMBER: in need of significant improvements to make it acceptable, but not a

matter of starting from scratch

RED: the scheme is fundamentally flawed and a fresh start is needed.

Appendix F

Planning Application Reference 10/0851/FUL

Proposed Travelodge, Eastern Gate, Newmarket Road,

Cambridge

Cambridgeshire County Council’s transport related response to the

application referenced above is as follows;

Previous Planning Application

The County Council’s comments regarding the previous application

for a Travelodge at the Eastern Gate site (planning application

reference 09/0708/FUL) are contained in the County Council’s letter

of the 14th January 2010. The County Council stated that it had no

transport related reasons to object to the proposed development.

Current Planning Application

The current planning application is for a hotel with 219 bedrooms, a

48 spaces car park and ancillary measures including cycle parking.

With regards to transport, the planning application is supported by a

Transport Assessment and a Hotel Transport Management Plan (both

documents dated August 2010).

In addition, the following items have subsequently been received from

the applicant’s project team;

i) SLR Technical Note dated 4th October 2010, which provides

clarity on the trip rates used for the transport assessment,

ii) The results of a traffic survey carried out at Coldhams Lane on

Saturday 23rd October 2010,

iii) SLR Technical Note dated 29th October 2010, which

complements the Transport Management Plan submitted

with the application, and

iv) An email from Januarys dated 2nd November 2010, which

describes a proposal to increase ECATP payments in the

event that the hotel exceeds predicted levels of generated

traffic.

These items are considered in the commentary below.

Transport Assessment

The key points arising from; the transport assessment report, the 4th

October Technical Note and 23rd October survey results are as

follows;

i) The transport assessment is predicated on the results obtained

from travel surveys undertaken at Travelodge hotels in

Brighton and Bath. The surveys were carried out over three

full days (ie 24 hours), Thursday to Saturday, on the 20th,

21st and 22nd May 2010.

ii) The results obtained from the Brighton/ Bath surveys are

consistent with the Manchester Travelodge data used to

support the previous planning application. In the week-day

morning peak, the Brighton/ Bath data predicts that the

proposed hotel would generate 36 vehicle trips (two-way),

whereas the Manchester data predicted 53 two-way

movements. In the week-day evening peak, the Brighton/

Bath data predicts that the proposed hotel would generate 51

vehicle trips (two-way), whereas the Manchester data

predicted 30 two-way movements.

iii) The Eastern Gate site has an existing reserved matters consent

for 6,780 sqm B1 office space. Comparing the consented

office with the proposed hotel, the office would be expected

to generate 40 two-way vehicle movements in both the

week-day morning and evening peak periods. As described

above, the hotel would generate 36 and 51 vehicle trips (two-

way) in the morning and evening peak periods respectively.

Thus, the difference in the levels of traffic that would be

generated by the office and hotel is;

AM Peak = 4 fewer vehicle trips

PM Peak = 11 additional vehicle trips

iv) Making the same comparison for a Saturday, the office would

not generate any appreciable level of generated traffic. The

hotel, however, is predicted to generate a maximum of 51

vehicle trips (two-way) per hour.

v) The transport assessment states that, of the total car trips

generated by the proposed hotel in the peak periods, 27%

are estimated to be taxis, with the remaining 73% being

private cars. Across 24 hours, the proportion of taxis is

expected to be 45% of the total number of vehicular trips.

vi) The transport assessment indicates that, during the week-day

morning and evening peak periods, the traffic generated by

the proposed hotel would represent;

A maximum increase of 3% to traffic flows

along Newmarket Road,

A maximum increase of 0.7% to traffic using

the Newmarket Road/ Coldhams Lane

junction, and

A maximum increase of 1.3% to traffic using

the New Road/ Coldhams Lane junction.

vii) Similarly, the transport assessment (and subsequent

technical note and traffic survey) indicates that for a

Saturday, the traffic generated by the proposed hotel would

represent;

A maximum increase of 1.9% to traffic flows

along Newmarket Road,

A maximum increase of 2.1% to traffic flows

along Coldhams Lane, and

A maximum increase of 2.6% to traffic using

the New Road/ Coldhams Lane junction.

Hotel Transport Management Plan

A Hotel Transport Management Plan (HTMP) was submitted in

support of the planning application. This has subsequently been

supplemented by the SLR Technical Note dated 29th.

The purpose of the HTMP is to minimise as far as possible travel

demand arising from the proposed hotel. It seeks to encourage those

staying at the hotel, and those employed at the hotel, to travel by non-

car modes of travel. In particular, it describes how travel demand will

be managed, not only through the normal range of travel plan

measures, but also through specific measures to be introduced as

part of a hotel-guest transport strategy. Most importantly, the HTMP

describes how parking demand at the hotel will be managed in order

to minimise on-street parking.

Additional ECATP Payments

Januarys’ email of the 2nd November 2010 describes their proposal

for making additional ECATP payments, up to £100,000, in the event

that levels of generated traffic exceed those predicted in the transport

assessment.

Discussion

The County Council’s position with respect to the transport related

matters associated with the proposed hotel scheme are as follows.

The County Council considers that the Eastern Gate site is situated in

a sustainable location, within convenient walking distance of

Cambridge city centre, the nearby retail parks and tourist attractions.

The Eastern Gate site is served by pedestrian footways and nearby

cycle routes. Newmarket Road is used by a number of bus services,

and there are bus-stops situated either side of Newmarket Road in

proximity to the Eastern Gate site. The bus services include a

frequent Park and Ride service and the Citi 3 service which connects

the Eastern Gate site with Cambridge railway station. This latter

service runs at 10 minutes intervals throughout the day, Monday to

Saturday, and at 30 minute intervals on Sundays and during

evenings.

The County Council is satisfied that a Hotel Transport Management

Plan can be implemented which will minimise car use. The plan

would include measures to inform hotel guests of the travel options

available to them at the time of making their room reservations. In

particular, the plan would include car parking management measures

including measures to discourage parking on nearby streets.

It has been demonstrated that hotel generated traffic will increase

traffic flows on Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane by up to 3%

during peak periods, both on week-days and at week-ends. The

County Council recognises that both Newmarket Road and Coldhams

Lane are busy transport corridors and are subject to congestion,

particularly at peak times. Nevertheless, the County Council’s view is

that the predicted increase in traffic levels is not material, particularly

when viewed against the day-to-day and season-to-season variation

in traffic flows that already occurs on the highway network. The

County Council does not consider that the predicted increase in traffic

flows on Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane is sufficient reason to

oppose the planning application.

It is noted that the applicant has offered additional ECATP payments,

up to £100,000, if generated traffic levels exceed the levels predicted

in the transport assessment. It is emphasised that the County

Council’s views remain as outlined above, irrespective of whether

such additional funds are forthcoming.

Recommendations

Having considered the matters outlined above, the County Council’s

position is that it does not wish to raise any objections to the

proposed development on transport related grounds.

The County Council requires that - should consent be granted - the

following items are secured, either by planning condition or through

the s106 Agreement;

i) Contribution of £30,000 towards the refurbishment of the

existing pedestrian crossing, located to the west of the

Eastern Gate site,

ii) Provision of new pedestrian crossing facilities at the Newmarket

Road/ Coldhams Lane junction,

iii) Provision of land along the frontage and eastern side of the

Eastern Gate site for future transport improvements,

iv) Contribution to the Eastern Area Corridor Transport Plan (to be

calculated in accordance with the City Council’s ECATP

planning guidance document),

v) Further ECATP contribution to mitigate excessive generated

traffic,

vi) Hotel Transport Management Plan - to be approved by the local

planning authority prior to opening for business.

Gerry Corrance

Transport Assessment Manager

For and on behalf of

Cambridgeshire County Council

3rd November 2010

Appendix G

Brunswick & North Kite Residents’ Association Petersfield Area Community Trust

Riverside Area Residents’ Association

17 October 2010

10/0851/FUL: 219-bedroomTravelodge hotel, Eastern Gate, 180-190 Newmarket Road Dear Mr Collins, We are writing on behalf of the three local residents’ associations to express our concerns about the above application. This proposal for a Travelodge hotel presents significant improvements on the application refused in February 2010 (09/0708/FUL), and we much appreciate that the applicant has involved us in discussions before and since submitting the plans. We regret to say, however, that we still consider the proposed hotel far too large for this congested location. We do regard the following as positive changes:

Reduction of height, by removal of the sixth storey.

Further setback from Newmarket Road, providing for tree planting along the full frontage.

The curved eastern end of the building, which gives a more

pleasing aspect.

Use of materials that are more sympathetic to the local surroundings (pale brick for the first three storeys and cedar wood cladding for the top two storeys).

The trellis for climbing shrubs on the southern elevation, which

provides a welcome ‘green’ link with the allotments to the south.

The bays and pop-out windows, which provide a better sense of variety to the long faēades, especially on Newmarket Road.

Notwithstanding these improvements, we still have concerns, stemming from the fact that the number of hotel rooms remains unchanged at 219.

1. Excessive hotel capacity

We do want Eastern Gate to be redeveloped and regard this location as a sustainable site for a hotel, but not of this capacity. At 219 rooms, this hotel would be the largest in Cambridge, with only the Crown Plaza in Downing Street (198 rooms) coming anywhere close. (The Crown Plaza, however, has much better bus links with the railway station.) The proposed capacity is massively higher than any edge of city centre hotel as defined by the Planning Policy Team in its comments on this application, dated 8 October 2010 (see their report for a summary of existing and proposed hotel room numbers). The Planning Policy Team also points out that the Humberts Leisure Report, submitted with the first application, stated (paragraph 2.3) that its conclusions were valid only for six months from March 2009, and no new needs assessment has been submitted with the current application. Since March 2009, other hotel applications have been approved and more are currently under consideration. As the Planning Policy report states, “the overall supply [of budget hotels] looks to be over catered for.” As we have pointed out in representations on the previous hotel applications for this site, the proposed hotel is also exceptionally large by Travelodge standards. Travelodge’s own target list in the South and South East aims for hotels with 45-100 rooms, so the Travelodge business model clearly works at levels well below the proposed capacity (including the existing 120-bedroom hotel at the Cambridge Leisure Park). We therefore continue to query the applicant’s claim that it is not commercially viable to develop a hotel of less than 200+ room capacity at Eastern Gate. In line with the overall thrust of the Planning Policy report on this application, we feel that no convincing case has been made for the need of a 219-bedroom hotel at this location. Given the extra traffic a

hotel of this capacity would generate in an exceptionally congested area (see section 3 below), we maintain that the proposed capacity is unsustainable here.

2. Excessive ‘slab’ height

We appreciate that the height of the proposed hotel is now in line with the height of the consented office scheme (06/0373/REM; due to expire in March 2011). Nevertheless, local residents remain concerned about permitting so large a building of this height, which constitutes an enormous increase over the height of the existing buildings (which, to be fair, everyone wants to be replaced). We have discussed this issue in our respective committees, and the general view is that the proposed hotel is still too high for this location, especially in relation to the residential areas to the north and south. In this regard, we point to two new developments: a. The Inspector’s Report (24 June 2010) dismissing the appeal against refusal of the adjacent residential development at Eastern Gate (09/0382/FUL) states in paragraph 13:

“...in my opinion the height and overall scale of the building remains inappropriate for the area and indeed somewhat incongruous. This is because in the views from New Street and the adjoining residential roads there can be no real appreciation of the relevance of the Newmarket Road corridor concept, with its justification for a larger and more intensive development than currently prevails. As a consequence, the contrast between the six-storey appeal scheme and the two-storey development south of Harvest Way ... would be perceived as being too great for a successful integration with the existing townscape.” The hotel now has five storeys, but is still very close to the height of the consented office. In the same appeal case, however, the Planning Inspector also casts doubt on the applicant’s reliance on the extant consent to justify a large new development (paragraph 14): “ The submitted scheme has in part been justified by the appellants by citing the reserved matters approval for offices which would occupy the adjoining land to the east. However I understand that that approval expires in less than a year and whilst it cannot be entirely discounted I am not persuaded that the possibility (rather than the

probability) of its implementation should be successfully used in its favour. Indeed the opposite is the case, as from all I have seen, heard and read the construction of both the office scheme and the appeal development would represent a far too intensive and unsympathetic redevelopment for both the street scene of this part of Newmarket Road and the character of its mixed use but predominantly residential area of Cambridge.“ b. In its draft Eastern Gate Visioning Document (July 2010), the Joint Urban Design Team suggests height parameters for the hotel site ranging from 3.5 to 5 storeys (Figure 49). The JUDT also strongly advocates variations in height to create vertical rhythm (pp. 46-47). In contrast, this application proposes an uninterrupted height of five storeys over a frontage that is 83 m long. Taken together, the Planning Inspector’s scepticism regarding the consented office scheme and the JUDT’s suggested guidelines for heights of development at Eastern Gate suggest that a five-storey building of this length is too high for the location. The Design & Conservation Panel strongly expressed a similar view when responding to the earlier hotel applications. We are very concerned that dismissing the views of both the JUDT and the Design & Conservation Panel will set a damaging precedent for future development of proposal site 7.01. In this regard, we are alarmed at paragraph 4.30 in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement, which states that “there is an opportunity for the [hotel] development itself to set the context for future proposals in the area.” This is precisely what local residents fear – that consenting this building will allow it to be used as a material height precedent for all further development in the Eastern Gate area.

3. Excessive traffic generation and overspill parking

With the unchanged number of hotel rooms and the unchanged number of on-site parking spaces, we remain most concerned about issues of traffic and parking. Our concern is that Eastern Gate, situated between three frequently congested and gridlocked main routes, is simply not an appropriate location for a hotel of this capacity. The original 2003 office consent stipulated ‘zero traffic impact’ because of County Highways’ concerns at the time that the local road network was already at capacity. Since then, traffic levels have increased due to further retail and residential developments. The attached photographs, taken on Saturday 30 May 2009, illustrate

current severe congestion problems. The applicant has presented a mass of traffic survey data and analyses in an attempt to establish that a 219-bedroom hotel in this location will not generate harmful levels of traffic. Nevertheless, a number of crucial assessments are missing (see section b below). a. New comparative data: far from ‘zero impact’? Among the data provided are trip generation figures based on new traffic surveys undertaken at Travelodge hotels in Bath and Brighton. These two hotels provide more realistic comparisons than the Central Manchester Travelodge of the refused application. Even so, traffic levels here may still be lower than those likely for Eastern Gate: the Brighton Travelodge is at a comparable distance from Brighton’s main station as Eastern Gate is from Cambridge station (roughly 2 km), but the regional Preston Park station is only 400 m away; and the hotel in Bath is in fact a 5-minute walk from Bath Spa station via a footbridge. The applicant’s traffic surveys have yielded the following trip generation figures: WEEKDAYS SATURDAYS AM

‘peak’ trips

PM ‘peak’ trips

Daily trips

Midday ‘peak’ trips

Daily trips

Bath trip/room rate x 219

37 47 614 22 569

Brighton trip/room rate x 219

26 49 783 32 1042

Since the local network has high traffic volumes outside the narrowly defined ‘peak’ hours and is frequently congested, especially at weekends, we are deeply worried about the prospect of up to 1042 additional trips per day. In September 2009, County Highways rejected an earlier Transport Assessment, stating: “..the comparison demonstrates that the proposed development is predicted to increase vehicle trips by an additional 64, 68 and 1,003 movements in the AM, PM and 24 hour periods respectively, compared to the existing site trip generation.

This is considered to be a significant increase compared to the existing site use that will impact on the existing congested highway networks. “ Moreover, the 2003 office consent was granted on the basis of ‘zero impact’ on local traffic. This was defined very precisely as 26 AM and 26 PM peak hour weekday trips, and office parking spaces restricted with the explicit aim of securing this. The Highways Officer stated: “Our concern is that anything other than zero impact could set a precedent for other developments in the area, leading to small incremental increases of traffic on that section of highway.” We agree with these previously stated views by County Highways, and believe that the applicant should be required to bring forward a proposal with trip numbers reduced significantly below those currently forecast, in line with the ‘zero impact’ stipulation of the original consent and with Local Plan Policy 8/2. b. The Coldham’s Lane/New Street bottleneck A hotel of this size in this location will exacerbate existing gridlock and congestion on Coldham’s Lane. This is because the majority of new trips will involve turns into or out of New Street from Coldham’s Lane, against the prevailing flow of traffic, on a single carriageway road. Harvest Way can only be accessed from New Street, and most drivers will leave or enter via the New Street/Coldham’s Lane junction to connect with routes to south, east and north. The applicant’s route choice figures indicate that 78% of car arrivals and 53% of departures will be via Coldham’s Lane. (We note in passing that another pending hotel application, for East Road, may also increase traffic along New Street.) The applicant presents these additional Travelodge trips as a tiny (1% or 1.3%) increase in vehicles “using the junction as a whole” (Table 5-4). However, this is disingenuous since most current vehicles are travelling along Coldham’s Lane past the junction. The true comparison should clearly be with current levels of traffic turning into or out of New Street, which the applicant puts at 9-10% of the total. The true impact is therefore closer to a 9-13% increase in turning vehicles. This is a serious problem, since Coldham’s Lane – a single lane road – carries higher volumes of vehicle traffic in weekday peak hours (AM

1668 vehicles, PM 1828 vehicles) than Newmarket Road (AM 1649 vehicles, PM 1703 vehicles), a dual carriageway. Increasing the number of cars stopping to turn will increase queues and congestion. Coldham’s Lane is also regularly gridlocked at weekends, when we believe it carries even higher volumes of traffic than on weekdays (see also the attached photographs). The applicant has not provided Saturday traffic data for Coldham’s Lane with the application, although we are now informed that surveys are to be carried out shortly. Furthermore, the applicant has again failed to provide proper capacity assessments for either the Coldham’s Lane/Newmarket Road junction or Coldham’s Lane/New Street junction. We consider this omission to be in breach of Department for Transport guidance on Transport Assessments, which states that applicants must provide: “identification of the critical links and junctions on the highway network, with calibrated capacity tests to reflect existing conditions.” The Coldham’s Lane/Newmarket Road junction was considered to be at capacity in 2003 (Inspector’s decision letter, McDonald’s inquiry), and traffic levels have since increased on both roads due to other major developments (Retail Park, TESCO’s, etc). Further increasing traffic queues at this junction could lead to even more serious, long-lasting gridlock.

c. Overspill parking

Since the applicant continues to seek 219 bedrooms for the hotel, our previously expressed concerns about parking remain. In the case of the previous application, our concerns were shared by Planning Policy, who stated that they “have concerns over the transport impact of the application, particularly in relation to car parking and over-spill on surrounding residential streets”. The Travel Management Plan submitted with this application is a great improvement on the last application’s Travel Plan (which devoted just a few paragraphs to hotel guests), but the question remains to what extent hotel guests’ behaviour can be ‘managed’. In practice, we have serious doubts that guests will all act responsibly when it comes to checking out the possibilities of free parking in the uncontrolled parking zone to the south of the hotel. This area, which already suffers badly from commuter parking, is without a Residents’ Parking Scheme and, as such, would be fair game for any hotel guests who would rather hunt around for a vacant space than pay for

on-site parking at the hotel or the Grafton West Car Park.

Conclusion

While we appreciate the reduction from six to five storeys and the considerable improvements in design, the applicant’s insistence that anything less than 219 hotel rooms is not a viable business option remains at the root of our objections. This unusually large hotel capacity, both by Cambridge and by Travelodge standards, is the key to the problems we have outlined above, namely:

Excessive building height in relation to the neighbouring residential areas

Uninterrupted height of five storeys over a frontage that is 83 m long

Excessive new traffic generation on a seriously congested local road network

Unacceptable impact on traffic congestion in Coldham’s Lane Damaging impact on parking in nearby residential streets

We therefore remain of the opinion that a 219-room hotel is not sustainable in this location and that the proposal violates Local Plan policy 8/1 (Spatial Location of Development). Yours sincerely, Co-Chair, Brunk Chair, RARA Chair, PACT Planning Subcommittee