PLANNING COMMITTEE 4th June 2014 Application Number

14/0052/FUL Agenda Item

Date Received 14th January 2014 Officer Mr Tony Collins

Target Date 15th April 2014 Ward West Chesterton Site Former Milton Road County Primary School Milton

Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB4 1UZ Proposal Proposed mix use development consisting of a sui

generis aparthotel (133 Units), 5no. class C3 residential townhouse units, class D2 Community space, underground car parking (80 spaces), and cycle parking (150 spaces)

Applicant TLC Group C/o Agent

SUMMARY The development does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons:

The proposed aparthotel use conflicts with the allocation of the site for housing in the Local Plan

The application does not provide for the necessary infrastructure improvements specified in the Planning Obligation Strategy

The proposal offers no mitigating measures against the deterioration of air quality it would engender

RECOMMENDATION REFUSAL

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The application site is an irregular polygon on the western corner

of the junction of Milton Road and Gilbert Road. Its south-eastern boundary runs for 30m along the back of the footway on Milton Road from Gilbert Road towards Mitcham’s Corner. Its north-eastern boundary runs for 115m along the back of the footway on Gilbert Road. The north-western (42m long) boundary adjoins the

curtilage of the dwelling at 11 Gilbert Road. The western boundary, 90m long, adjoins access roads and car parks associated with the Westbrook Centre. To the south, the site abuts that of the Manor Care Home. The surrounding areas to the north-west, north and east of the site are predominantly residential. The areas to the west and south are in more mixed uses, which include retail, offices, public houses, and the Cambridge City football ground.

1.2 The site was formerly occupied by Milton Road County Primary

School. Following the granting of permission for redevelopment of the site (07/0328/FUL), the school buildings were demolished. Following the granting of permission to phase the development permitted under 07/0328/FUL (08/0428/S73), the Manor Care Home was erected on the area to the south of the present application site, and a vehicular access route created from an entrance on Gilbert Road, through the application site, to reach the rear and north-eastern side of the care home. The site is allocated as a site for housing and community facilities in the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). It falls within the area of the Mitcham’s Corner Strategic Planning and Development Brief 2003. The site is not allocated for any specific use in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission, but it forms part of the designated Mitcham’s Corner Opportunity Area to which Policy 21 of that Submission applies. The site is not within a conservation area.

1.3 There are 15 trees on the site: 4 in category B and the remainder

in Category C. There are also nine trees (8 category B, one category C) immediately adjacent to the site in adjoining curtilages, and one category B tree on highway land in front of the site. None of these is subject to a tree preservation order.

1.4 The site falls within the controlled parking zone. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The scheme consists of two components: a terrace of five houses

at the northwest end of the site, and an aparthotel which would fill the remainder of the site.

Houses

2.2 A terrace of five four-bedroom houses would run across the north end of the site, facing the access road. The houses would be of a

contemporary design, finished in brick with projecting bays clad in zinc. They would have mono-pitched roofs sloping down from the front elevation, second-floor terraces to the rear, solar panels built in to the south-facing elevations, and enclosed rear gardens. Each house would be 8m wide x 11.5m deep, and the terrace would rise to 9.6m above ground at the top of the front elevation.

Aparthotel

2.3 The proposed aparthotel would have 135 apartments (studio, one-

bedroom and two-bedroom), catering for a mixture of short-, medium-, and long-term stays, which might last up to 90 nights. All the apartments would be fully equipped for self-catering, but the aparthotel would provide significant shared facilities, including staffed reception and security desks, catering facilities, swimming pool, sauna and gym, lounge and external courtyard, laundry, small retail unit and cleaning services.

2.4 The aparthotel would resemble a hollow rectangle in footprint, 70m

wide along the Gilbert Road elevation by 50m deep. A polygonal pavilion measuring 15m x 20m would be attached to the main building at the corner where Milton Road meets Gilbert Road, and there would be a break in the rectangle in the south west corner where there would be a ground floor delivery bay and bin storage area. The side and rear wings of the aparthotel rectangle, surrounding an internal courtyard, would rise to a flat roof at 13.6m above ground. Two plant enclosures, one on the west side, and a smaller one on the south arm, would rise a further 2.2m. On the Gilbert Road frontage, a series of monopitch metal-clad projections would break up the elevation. The building would be predominantly clad in red brick, with metal cladding at the upper level on the Gilbert Road side. The corner pavilion would be clad in reconstituted stone.

2.5 The application is accompanied by the following supporting

information:

1. Design Statement 2. Planning Statement 3. Sustainable development Checklist 4. Transport Assessment and Travel Plan 5. Renewable Energy Report 6. Utilities Report

7. Ventilation and Extraction Statement 8. Surface Water and Flood Risk Assessment 9. Ecology Report 10. Tree Survey and Arboricultural Report 11. Site Waste Management 12. Public Art Delivery Plan 13. Noise Survey 14. Air Quality Report 15. Daylight/Sunlight Study 16. Needs Study

2.6 Amended plans were received (on 17th April 2014) which show the

following revisions:

� Garden of townhouse A extended � Townhouse cycle storage spaces reconfigured � Two disabled spaces added to basement � Staffroom window added � Blue engineering brick wall added to SE elevation � Sliding doors added to dining area � Window added to end of corridor on each of first, second and

third floors � Accessible bedroom added on each of first, second and third

floors � Signage locations indicated � Third floor units in corner element reconfigured to have rounded

polygonal form similar to lower floors � Mansafe added to roof � Additional planting

2.7 Notification of these amendments was sent to the addresses

originally notified, and those who had made representations. 3.0 SITE HISTORY 3.1

Reference Description Outcome 07/0328 Redevelopment for 88-bed care home

and 4 studio flats for employees, and 67 flats with community facilities and associated parking and landscaping.

Approved with conditions

08/0428 Variation of conditions attached to Approved

07/0328/FUL to permit phasing

with conditions

11/0091 Proposed erection of extra care accommodation (55 flats) (Use Class C2) including ancillary facilities, a community room (Use Class D1), 9no residential apartments (Use Class C3), new pedestrian accesses, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

Refused

3.2 The application 11/0091/FUL above was refused on the grounds of

inappropriate design and the absence of a planning obligation agreement. The decision notice is attached as Appendix 1.

3.3 A series of permissions related to the former school use between

the 1960s and the 1990s are not of relevance to this application. 4.0 PUBLICITY 4.1 Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes

5.0 POLICY 5.1 See Appendix 1 for full details of Central Government Guidance,

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies, Supplementary Planning Documents and Material Consideration

5.2 Relevant Development Plan policies

PLAN POLICY NUMBER

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan (Development Plan Documents) July 2011

CS16

Cambridge Local Plan 2006

3/1 3/4 3/7 3/9 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/15

4/4 4/13 4/14 4/15

5/1 5/4 5/5 5/10 5/12

6/3 6/8

8/2 8/6 8/9 8/10 8/16 8/18

10/1

5.3 Relevant Central Government Guidance, Supplementary Planning

Documents and Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012

Circular 11/95

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

Supplementary Planning Documents

Sustainable Design and Construction

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP) : Waste Management Design Guide

Affordable Housing

Planning Obligation Strategy

Public Art

Material Considerations

Central Government:

National Planning Practice Guidance 2014

Citywide:

Arboricultural Strategy

Biodiversity Checklist

Cambridge City Nature Conservation

Strategy

Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005)

Cambridge and Milton Surface Water Management Plan

Open Space and Recreation Strategy

Balanced and Mixed Communities – A Good Practice Guide

Cambridge City Council - Guidance for the application of Policy 3/13 (Tall Buildings and the Skyline) of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) (2012)

Cambridgeshire Design Guide For Streets and Public Realm

Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments

Air Quality in Cambridge – Developers Guide

Cambridge Shopfront Design Guide

Area Guidelines:

Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan

Mitcham’s Corner Area Strategic Planning and Development Brief 2003

5.4 Status of Proposed Submission – Cambridge Local Plan

Planning applications should be determined in accordance with policies in the adopted Development Plan and advice set out in the NPPF. However, after consideration of adopted plans and the NPPF, policies in emerging plans can also be given some weight when determining applications. For Cambridge, therefore, the emerging revised Local Plan as published for consultation on 19

July 2013 can be taken into account, especially those policies where there are no or limited objections to it. However it is likely, in the vast majority of instances, that the adopted development plan and the NPPF will have considerably more weight than emerging policies in the revised Local Plan.

For the application considered in this report, the following policies in the emerging Local Plan are of relevance: Policy 21 Mitcham’s Corner Opportunity Area Policy 36 Air quality, odour and dust Policy 45 Affordable housing Policy 77 Development and expansion of hotels

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Planning Policy Team 6.1 The proposals site is part of site 5.13 allocated in the Local Plan

2006 for housing and community facilities. Policy 5/1 of the Local Plan 2006 states that sites allocated for residential development are safeguarded and development for alternative uses will not be permitted except under these particular circumstances:

a. as provided for in Policies 9/4 to 9/9 or the Proposals Schedule;

or b. for additional floorspace for established firms for their own

occupation and use on their existing site. 6.2 The two criteria where exceptions can be made are not applicable

in this case. 6.3 Whether this development accords with policy 5/1 turns on

whether the proposed development is “residential development”. 6.4 There is some uncertainty at the moment as to whether the

proposal is “residential development” or not. The applicant states that the development they are proposing is not residential (see paragraph 4.20). However policy 77 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission states that aparthotels will be treated as residential uses and affordable housing will be sought. The emerging plan is not adopted and the Council has received objections to this policy, and so it carries little weight at this stage.

6.5 Prior to the adoption of the new Local Plan, legal advice should be

sought as to whether an aparthotel constitutes “residential development”. If it does constitute residential development then affordable housing should be sought in line with policy 5/5. If it does not constitute residential development then the proposal is not in accordance with policy 5/1.

Cambridgeshire County Council (Highways Development Management)

6.6 Dimensioned plans requested. The internal road serves no

highway function and would not be adopted by the Highway Authority. This should be brought to the attention of the applicant. Mention is made in the Planning Statement that, during public consultation, local people sought provision of a left-turn facility for cyclists at the Milton Road/Gilbert Road junction. The Developers response to this stated that they would discuss this with the Highway Authority. To my knowledge they have not done so, and so the issue has not been moved forward.

Cambridgeshire County Council (Transport Assessment) First comment (11th February 2014)

Cycling and walking 6.7 The Travel Plan associated with the development should promote

and make residents and visitor aware of the safest walking and cycling routes to the site and other key attractions and facilities throughout Cambridge.

Trip Generation and Distribution

6.8 The distribution of development trips was based on the observed

turning proportions from the traffic survey. There are concerns that the current land use from the site access road is not representative of the potential distribution associated with the proposed development, and therefore further consideration of the trip distribution is required. Given that the site is primarily residential, it may be more appropriate to use the journey to work Census.

Car and cycle parking 6.9 75 parking spaces provided for the aparthotel, which is

approximately the equivalent of one space per two bedrooms. 5 parking spaces are deemed appropriate for the community space.

6.10 There will be 150 secure and covered cycle parking provided on

site. Although the Transport Assessment states that this is in accordance with cycle parking standards it is not clear which standards have been applied to the Aparthotel and how the supply of cycle parking has been calculated, and therefore further information is required.

Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan

6.11 Trip calculations from the transport assessment:

A Former primary school: pupil trips 942 B Former primary school staff trips 100 C Total former primary school trips (A+B) 1042 D Current trips from care home 284 E Remaining trips from previous use not yet offset

by new uses (C-D) 758

F Total trips generated by new uses in this proposal

777.5

G Net additional trips created (F-E) 19.5 6.12 The Transport Assessment demonstrates that a NCATP

contribution is not required as the net increase in development trips are below the threshold of 50 trips.

Travel Plan

6.13 The Transport Assessment sets out a framework for a future travel

plan, although it is not made clear when the travel plan is to be developed. The County Council require that a framework travel plan be produced and agreed with the County Council prior to occupation.

6.14 The framework travel plan should detail as a minimum; the aims

and objectives of the travel plan, an assessment of the sustainable transport options in the area to identify the opportunities and constraints, a list of measures to be implemented, as well as

details of how the travel plan will be implemented, monitored, managed and funded. The framework travel plan should include interim travel plan targets which can be revised following the baseline survey and a full Travel Plan developed. The revised full Travel Plan should be submitted to the Council no later than 9 months following occupation.

Conclusions

6.15 Further information required on the following:

� Revised Arcady outputs addressing minor arms measurements � Further consideration of the development trip distribution � Further details on the cycle parking provision compared to cycle

standards. � A Framework Travel Plan should be provided to the County

Council for agreement prior to occupation of the development.

Second comment (13th February 2014) 6.16 The following issues arise with the modelling of the junction: the

right turn from Milton Road into Gilbert Road doesn't appear to have been configured correctly, and the saturation flow on the side road is higher than I would expect. The effects of these will be to show an artificially high capacity and the model should be reviewed and inputs adjusted to reflect the junction operation accurately. Head of Refuse and Environment: Environmental Quality

Construction/demolition pollution

6.17 Pollution from the construction phase has the potential to affect the

amenity of surrounding properties. Recommend construction hours and deliveries conditions

Noise impact assessment

6.18 Traffic noise: recommended maximum noise levels will not be

achieved with windows open in habitable rooms on the Milton and Gilbert road façade. Conditions recommended to require noise insulation and mechanical ventilation.

6.19 Plant: plant noise condition required 6.20 Existing plant – care home and Westbrook centre: noise

assessment and insulation scheme required

Substation, Gym, Community room 6.21 All have the potential to cause noise disturbance to neighbouring

properties. Noise insulation condition required. Licensing informative also required for the community room element.

Odour

6.22 Ventilation statement is insufficient. Kitchen extracts, laundry room

and extracts serving the proposed swimming pool/sauna/steam room could affect neighbour amenity. They require assessment and suitable filtration. Condition required.

Head of Refuse and Environment: Air Quality

6.23 This development would lead to a worsening in air quality within

the AQMA (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, contrary to Policy 4/14 Cambridge Local Plan (2006). Refusal is therefore recommended unless sufficient Section 106 measures have been agreed to mitigate against this.

Head of Refuse and Environment: Waste Strategy

6.24 There is insufficient information concerning the Aparthotel. Access

for a large vehicle seems to have been considered but I would like to see tracking for the site. Waste provisions for the town houses are sufficient. Condition recommended

Head of Refuse and Environment: overall

6.25 In the event of a recommendation for approval, conditions

recommended on construction noise and vibration, piling, construction hours, construction deliveries, noise insulation, plant noise, noise assessments, fume filtration and extraction, waste storage and collection for the aparthotel, and the circulation route for waste vehicles

Urban Design and Conservation Team 6.26 The scheme rises to four storeys towards the back of the site,

away from Gilbert Road and Milton Road and provides a distinctive three storey flat roofed building at the junction of the two roads.

Scale and Massing and the Cambridge Skyline Strategy

6.27 Proposals trigger the need for assessment against the Skyline

Strategy. The applicant has assessed the impact of the scheme from a number of viewpoints and provided CGIs. Distant views of the site will not be possible and therefore near views are most significant. CGI views of the approaches along Gilbert Road and Milton Road demonstrate that the scheme fits in with the prevailing scale and character of the context. Scheme makes successful transition from the more urban character to the SE along Milton Road to the suburban character to the north. The height of the Milton Road stone-faced block responds well to this context and will create an acceptable ‘local landmark’ whilst not overpowering the residential scale to the NE.

6.28 Gilbert Road elevation has been moderated in terms of scale

through the introduction of a series of pitched roof elements that break down the scale and massing along this elevation and respond well to the prevailing character along this street. Elevation reads as a series of townhouse-proportioned elements which reduces the scale of the four storey massing of the aparthotel to the south east.

6.29 Townhouses present a well-articulated gable to Gilbert Road. The

massing of this element allows for a successful transition between the development site and the existing residential development located to the north.

Elevations and materials

6.30 Contemporary approach to elevations, but informed by the scale,

massing and detailing of the existing residential development along Gilbert Road and Milton Road. Approach is supported but some clarifications and amendments needed.

Aparthotel elevations 6.31 Building reads as two distinct elements. Northern part of the

building at the corner of Milton Road and Gilbert Road forms a three storey flat roofed structure with a well recessed fourth floor pavilion. The plan is asymmetrical and allows the building to effectively ‘turn the corner’ and provide a distinctive contrast, with the use of reconstituted stone, to the balance of the building along Gilbert Road. The pitched roof elements along Gilbert Road help to break down the scale of the building and relate it proportionally to the existing residential properties. Along with the proposed chimneys, the roof form creates a well-articulated and varied roof form especially when viewed at street level.

6.32 Amendments or clarifications are required about:

� ground floor masonry element � columns at the ground floor below the stone clad part of the

building � dark grey panel � lintel above the large glazed section � signage � finish of the plant enclosures � roof details for maintenance and access � upper floor set back ‘box’ at corner � glazed balustrade � materials for the 4th storey corridor � height of 4th storey corridor � blank glazing section to ground floor female WCs � junctions between glazed panel and masonry � PV panels � deliverability of proposed trees along Gilbert Road � boundary treatment on Gilbert Road � openings adjacent to the car park ramp � windows at the ends of corridors � gated control to the service yard � definition between the ground floor and first floor on rear

elevation � proposed ‘cleaning cupboard’ behind the full height glazing � absence of windows in staff room � stair access car park void � car park entrance details � materials for dormers

� landscape buffer strip between ground floor rooms and the footway

� ground floor courtyard openings

Townhouse elevations 6.33 A row of five three storey townhouses is arranged so that they

present a gable to Gilbert Road. The sloping roof form creates an acceptable transition between the taller aparthotel building located to the south east and the existing properties located to the south. A series of chimneys are proposed that pick up on the detailing of those on the aparthotel and which create a more interesting and articulated roofscape that is a characteristic of the prevailing suburban residential area.

6.34 Amendments or clarifications are required about:

� PV panels � proposed parking spaces near House A � unresolved area of greenspace to the north-east of House A

Materials

6.35 The overall palette of materials is supported in design terms.

Proposed red brick picks up on the prevailing brick colour along Gilbert Road and is reminiscent of the brick used on the former Milton Road Junior School. The reconstituted stonework will need to be well detailed but is supported as a method of differentiating the ‘front of house/public functions’ of the building from the balance of the site.

Public realm, activity and surveillance

6.36 Organisation of the ground floor maximises the opportunities for

creating activity and surveillance onto the proposed public realm at the junction of Milton Road and Gilbert Road. The opportunity to ‘de-clutter’ the pedestrian crossing to improve the setting of the proposed building and enhance the public realm should be taken as part of these proposals.

6.37 A higher quality space with room for a significantly scaled tree

could be created if parking spaces between the development and the care home were to be deleted.

Conclusion 6.38 Scale and massing and approach taken to elevations and

organisation of the various functions are supported. Some adjustments needed to the elevations.

6.39 Setback fourth floor ‘pavilion’ on the Milton Road frontage needs to

be redesigned to soften the shape and to work more convincingly with the form of the reconstituted stone section of the building below.

6.40 Subject to amendments and clarifications, scheme is supported

Senior Sustainability Officer (Design and Construction)

Sustainable design and construction 6.41 Information submitted offers very limited coverage of wider

approach to sustainable development. Design and Access Statement does not demonstrate clearly how the principles of sustainable design and construction have been integrated into the design of the scheme. Applicant encouraged to give wider consideration to the following areas as the scheme progresses:

6.42 Environmental impact of materials: no specific reference in

submission to the responsible sourcing of materials. Recommend that materials are sourced with reference to the Green Guide and chain of custody schemes

6.43 Water conservation: application suggests targets for water

consumption in the residential element of the scheme are not applicable. No targets have been set for the aparthotel element. Applicants encouraged to target Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM requirements for water consumption, eg designing to Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 water requirements for the townhouses as a minimum.

6.44 Sustainable drainage: no sustainable drainage systems proposed;

no information submitted in relation to the drainage strategy for the site. All development needs to ensure that it does not add to surface water flood risk, and demonstrate how this will be achieved. Given the amount of flat roof area proposed, green roofs could have been utilised. Strongly recommend that further

advice be sought from the Council’s Sustainable Drainage Engineer.

Renewable Energy Provision

6.45 The proposals will utilise a gas fired Combined Heat and Power

(CHP) System. Given the nature of the proposal, which will include a swimming pool, the use of this technology is supported. Energy statement indicates reduction in carbon emissions in the order of 62 tonnes per annum (a 10% reduction would be 69 tonnes per year). This level of carbon reduction is supported.

6.46 However, format in which carbon calculations are submitted is not

overly clear, Recommend that revised carbon calculations are submitted which more clearly show the levels of carbon reduction being achieved at each stage of the energy hierarchy for each of the uses within the proposed scheme. Recommend that the Energy Statement form included within Appendix C2 of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD be used as the basis for these calculations. This could be dealt with by condition. Also helpful if further clarity could be provided as to whether all elements of the scheme will benefit from the gas-fired CHP.

Conclusion

6.47 Overall approach supported, but greater clarity in relation to

carbon calculations is required. Applicant could go further in relation to the responsible sourcing of materials and water conservation measures.

Access Officer 6.48 Little consideration of the needs of disabled users. Should be at

least 5 Blue Badge Spaces properly set out. 5% of rooms should be to accessible standards.

6.49 Needs to be consideration of signage, colour contrast, hearing

loops. Pool needs specialist changing and pool access hoists. 6.50 Given these major oversights I imagine smaller details will not

have been thought of. Scheme should meet BS8300 and the English Tourist Board standards.

Head of Streets and Open Spaces (Landscape Team)

Initial comments 29th January 2014 6.51 Concerns relating to the proposed Gilbert Road landscape

treatment, and potential shading of both the communal amenity space and the private gardens.

6.52 Require further information. Require confirmation that proposed

Gilbert Road tree planting is both physically possible with respect to underground services and would have the approval of the Highway Authority. Full survey is required.

6.53 Require comprehensive shadow studies to be sure that the spaces

receive adequate sunlight. BREEAM Standards require 'no more than two-fifths, and preferably no more than a quarter of any amenity areas should be prevented by buildings from receiving any sunlight at all on 21 March'.

Second comment 11th February 2014 6.54 Two areas of primary concern: off-site tree planting and the quality

of the proposed amenity spaces.

Gilbert Road Landscape Treatment 6.55 Proximity of the building line to the Gilbert Road boundary limits

the opportunity to establish a meaningful threshold space in keeping with the residential character of Gilbert Road. Proposed scheme relies on the success of off-site tree planting. Not acceptable. Detailed survey required to determine the services below ground and confirmation of Highway Authority approval.

6.56 Suggest that a low brick wall with railings forms the Gilbert Road

boundary of the site with a hedge behind (on the inside). 6.57 Proposed tree species not in accordance with the existing palette

of Gilbert Road. Should be revised to complement the existing palette of trees and the scale of the proposed building. This in turn will inform the required setback of the building from the street trees.

Milton Road Landscape Treatment 6.58 The concept of the proposed landscape works along Milton Road

are supported, but detailed design of this space is particularly important. One larger specimen tree may be more successful in this space, than two. Space should have a ‘shared space’ quality, rather than being dominated by car parking.

Townhouse Gardens

6.59 Quality of the proposed townhouse gardens questionable given

their northern orientation and the proximity of the existing trees along the northern boundary of the site. Decking not supported as this will become very slippery in the shade. Space at the western end of the townhouses could be integrated into the garden of the end terrace.

Courtyard

6.60 Concerned about the potential shading of this space. Require

comprehensive shadow studies to be sure that the spaces receive adequate sunlight. BREEAM Standards require ‘no more than two-fifths, and preferably no more than a quarter of any amenity areas should be prevented by buildings from receiving any sunlight at all on 21 March’.

6.61 As the planting areas are over a basement car park we will require

full engineering construction details of these spaces.

Drainage 6.62 Should be a comprehensive green roof system on this site.

Conclusion

6.63 Not supported in its current form. Require further information.

Third comment following amendments 8th May 2014 6.64 Amendments are supported, but concerns about the reliance on

off-site tree planting and the quality of the proposed amenity spaces remain.

Head of Streets and Open Spaces (Walking and Cycling Officer)

6.65 The cycling officer has not commented on the application. Any

comments received will be reported on the amendment sheet, or at Committee.

Head of Streets and Open Spaces (Sustainable Drainage Officer)

6.66 Proposed discharge rates and overall philosophy of the surface water drainage strategy is supported. Further details of how this is to be delivered onsite should be provided and secured by a suitably worded condition. This building lends itself to a green roof and permeable paving and this should be considered as part of the detailed surface water drainage design. The location of any underground tanks should also be in a location that is compatible with the landscape proposals. Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer)

6.67 Car park ramp: recommend (in line with Secured by Design) that car park ramp is gated or that CCTV is put in place covering the underground car park.

6.68 Bicycle spaces on the Gilbert Road elevation: no surveillance at

night other than by passing traffic - risk can be mitigated by installing 2 x CCTV cameras covering the area.

6.69 Cycle parking on opposite elevation: no surveillance from the

Aparthotel; risk is reduced here slightly with some overlooking from the residential home opposite, but recommend that this area be covered by CCTV. (Assume Aparthotel would be staffed 24/7 with the capability of monitoring CCTV from the reception desk.)

6.70 Houses, recommend that secured cycle storage be included.

Ministry of Defence (Air Safeguarding) 6.71 No safeguarding objections.

Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 12th February 2014)

6.72 The conclusions of the Panel meeting were as follows:

Scale and massing in response to context 6.73 At the July 2013 presentation, the Panel concluded that the

demands of seeking to achieve the number of units then proposed resulted in a building which is overbearing and out of scale. Furthermore, it was asserted that a reduction in numbers would potentially unlock solutions to a range of concerns regarding the scheme, including building heights and landscaping which was seen as particularly relevant to the domestic scale of Gilbert Road. Revisions to the previous scheme included; the stepping back of parts of the Gilbert Road elevation, compressing and re-siting roof plant, adjusting the siting of trees proposed along the frontage, and a re-design of its articulation and rhythm. An overall reduction of 2 units resulted. Panellists views ranged from being not persuaded by the design response to the scale and massing of the Gilbert Road elevation, to more accepting, but with a desire to see further adjustments to be made to improve its articulation and rhythm. Such suggested improvements are set out in the sub sections which deal with detailed design and landscaping.

Movement and access

6.74 The Panel supported the creation of a new street space along the

access road off Gilbert Road which had the potential to facilitate a pedestrian and cycle link to the landlocked former Cambridge City FC site. The Panel identified another potential means of improving the permeability of the wider area involving an extension to the circulation space between the proposed development and the adjoining care home from the proposed dignified and welcoming entrance off Milton Road through to the access road serving the Westbrook Centre and the former football ground. The Panel urge the design team and client to explore all options to secure an improvement to the area’s permeability with landowners and statutory authorities.

Open space/landscape 6.75 Central courtyard. If shadow studies were to reveal this space

would be largely in shade, the practicality of a lawned space should be reviewed.

6.76 Tree planting along Gilbert Road. Concerns were expressed

regarding the uncertainty over the deliverability of large trees in the road verge given the proximity to services. Failure to soften the Gilbert Road elevation with substantial street trees would detract from the scheme’s responsiveness to its context. Greater certainty over inclusion of the tree planting is therefore needed.

6.77 Whilst the addition of tree planting within the internal ‘street’ to

improve the outlook of residents of the care home was welcomed, the choice of Hornbeam 'Fastigiata' as the trees to be planted was questioned. Such medium sized deciduous trees with their narrow crowns when young may seem appropriate, but as they mature could become problematic in this location.

Detailed design –elevations and materials: Gilbert Road elevation.

6.78 Light and ventilation into corridors. As the ground and first floor

corridors are only to be naturally lit at each end, the Panel would encourage the incorporation of light shafts or light pipes.

6.79 The Panel were comfortable with the inclusion of chimneys, which

enhance the elevation to Gilbert Road. 6.80 Mono-pitched gables. It was felt that the combination of mono-

pitch roofs and an absence of entrances at the street level emphasised the elevation’s linearity and industrial style. The incorporation of dormers, whilst resolving the issues of limited head height were nevertheless regarded as unwelcome features. If the dormers are to remain, they will require very careful detailing to minimise their visual intrusion.

6.81 Fenestration. The design team are encouraged to refine some of

the techniques already applied in order to break up the linearity of the building. For instance, recessing every other first floor window along the Gilbert Road elevation might add additional interest and visual ‘texture’.

6.82 Glazed corridor (view of NE approach on Milton Road). This would appear as a long illuminated band of white light at night. The Panel suggest that measures be explored to break up this long band and diffuse the artificial light, without compromising the continuity of materials.

6.83 The introduction of a brick mullion towards the corner block was

seen as a missed opportunity. The incorporation of additional glazing and zinc is recommended for a more successful result.

6.84 Anthracite’ zinc (gables). This appears as quite dark in the

presentation material. This would need to be recessive for a more slate effect appropriate for a residential development.

Detailed design –elevations and materials: Free-formed corner block.

6.85 The Panel felt this would benefit from further detailing, with a

number of devices that could be explored. 6.86 Top floor Pavilion form. The rectilinear shape of the upper level

was seen as awkward. Reducing the number of rooms from two to one would allow for more flexibility. A more modulated, curved upper element that sat within the roof without covering the whole expanse would be preferable. Consideration might also be given to reflecting the alignment of the glass walls to the ground floor on the roof-top pavilion.

6.87 Re-constituted stone. The Panel would encourage careful

consideration in the choice of colour. A more textured material than standard bond would also be recommended.

6.88 The varying fascia depths above and below the double height

window appeared awkward and the Panel suggest that the proportions be reviewed, in order to achieve a more consistent depth to these two bands.

Detailed design –elevations and materials: Access Road (shared surface).

6.89 The Panel note the current access road needs to be able to

accommodate ambulances. Some further detailing particularly the section adjoining the care home would be welcomed. The use of

high quality surface materials is encouraged, with the landscaping designed to express a degree of informality.

Detailed design –elevations and materials: Townhouses.

6.90 In the Panel’s view, although designed with the same materials,

these dwellings have been given a different expression and were seen by some as relating poorly with the rest of the site.

Conclusion

6.91 The Panel was not unanimous in its response to the changes

made to address the height, bulk and density concerns raised last time. Whilst the reduced mass and configuration of the corner block was seen as an improvement, particularly given its transitional setting in the streetscape, concerns remain in relation to the appropriateness of the design and detailing of the Gilbert Road elevation.

6.92 VERDICT – RED (1), AMBER (5) and GREEN (4)

6.93 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 County Councillor Scutt has commented on this application. Her

comments are as follows: 7.2 The site at Gilbert Road/Milton Road is one that requires

development and is a prime site for residential development. This is particularly so in that Cambridge generally and West Chesterton in particular requires a good injection of residential properties. West Chesterton is a Ward/Division where there is little movement of residential properties so that this site provides a significant opportunity to correct the absence of residential properties for purchase.

7.3 Sadly, the Aparthotel is not a development which nearby residents

contacting me wish to see in this location. Two residents have said they welcome the proposal as contrasted with a dozen or more who say otherwise. This objection was strongly registered also at a

recent public meeting held in the Boathouse, relating to Mitcham's Corner.

Parking, Transport & Traffic

7.4 These issues are constant in concerns expressed by West

Chesterton residents. Adding to the parking problems of the Ward/Division would be extremely retrograde. It is impossible to see that this proposal would not add to West Chesterton' parking problems. Although the proposal states there will be underground parking, the underground parking proposal is ill-defined and if it were in the vicinity of 80 spaces, this would exacerbate traffic on Gilbert Road - it is difficult to see how cars will exit the underground parking area on to Gilbert Road without causing traffic jams and danger for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. People taking up residence in the proposed property are highly unlikely to bring cycles with them and that they would rent cycles is highly unlikely. Cycling is a major transport alternative for Cambridge dwellers, however, those taking up residents in the proposed property will be short-term stayers so it is not likely they will conform to Cambridge use of cycles during that time. Bus transportation in West Chesterton is suitable for those travelling into Cambridge City Centre. However, travel elsewhere - such as to the West Road site of the University - is not served at all. It may be expected that those to whom the proposal expects to cater may well be university people or seeking to utilise university sites and particularly the West Road site. The absence of bus transportation means they will bring cars with them, hire cars, or call on taxi transport - leading to clogging of the roadway and picking up/putting down problems.

Design

7.5 The design is not in keeping with West Chesterton. It may 'do' in

an inner city environment - although some would have concerns in that regard. However, for a residential area it simply does not fit. The density proposed is terrific - and again unsuited to the area. Homes in the area are generally two storey - this building far exceeds that level and is out of keeping with the two storey profile of Gilbert and Milton Roads and surrounding roads and the area generally. The notion that the plan 'avoids any adverse impact on neighbouring property' is one raising astonishment with local residents. Any encroachment onto the corner of Gilbert/Milton

Roads corner has negative consequences and the design appears to do so. This can create sight difficulties for motorists coming down Gilbert Road and from a design perspective creates a large, solid frontage onto a corner which requires space and positive visibility as well as relief in the way of foliage and trees. A wall directly onto the pavement is not in keeping with the area.

Policy

7.6 The proposal does not conform to the Local Plan and

endeavouring to subvert the Local Plan by assertions that the design and its purpose are unique does not overcome the problem. The area is residential - meaning stable, longterm residential, not short-term, peripatetic stayers. An ApartHotel (apart from the egregious term) is not suitable to West Chesterton. It eliminates the possibility of social housing which is a necessity for the area and for Cambridge generally. No good reason is put forward by the developers for ignoring the commitment developers should make to the required proportion of social housing or affordable housing in any residential development. Projecting this proposed development as unique does not eliminate the requirement for a proportion of the development to be committed to affordable housing.

Section 106 Requirement

7.7 The proposal contains no commitment to providing section 106

monies or proposal for community uses of 106 contribution. On this basis alone, the proposal ought not to be accepted. The nod to a 'community room' is not well thought out or developed. There is no real indication of how this community room will be or become accessible to the community, for what purposes it would be open for use, and how the relatively small space planned could be a real community centre. West Chesterton has no community centre. Milton Road Library is a positive resource however it is inadequate as it presently stands for all the uses to which a community centre might be put in the area. The 'community room' in this proposed development is even more inadequate.

Conclusion

7.8 As Labour County Councillor for West Chesterton I thank the

developers for their readiness to talk with me and my colleagues

about the proposal. This move is most welcome and appreciated. At the same time, as there are so many concerns expressed to me about the proposal and my own observation indicates to me that the proposal does not 'fit' with the area of West Chesterton or West Chesterton in general, I must object to it and request that the developers return to the drawing board. This is undoubtedly an extremely good site. It opens itself to a positive development adding to the area as a residential one requiring more housing. I look forward to future development of the site in keeping with housing needs of West Chesterton and Cambridge generally, and a design consistent with the area.

7.9 The owners/occupiers of the following addresses have made

representations objecting to the proposal:

3 Ascham Road 13 Ascham Road (2) 15 Birch Close 227 Chesterton Road 2 Gilbert Road 6 Gilbert Road 8 Gilbert Road 17 Gilbert Road 19 Gilbert Road 27 Gilbert Road 34 Gilbert Road 36 Gilbert Road (2) 40 Gilbert Road 61 Gilbert Road 63 Gilbert Road 82 Gilbert Road 87 Gilbert Road 88 Gilbert Road 106 Gilbert Road 109 Gilbert Road 119 Gilbert Road 173 Gilbert Road 47 Greens Road

6 Gurney Way (2) 10 Gurney Way 60 Harding Way 26 Herbert Street 30 Herbert Street 35 Herbert Street 53 Herbert Street 4 Mayfair Court 9-19 Milton Road (odd numbers, joint response) 39 Milton Road 43 Milton Road 51 Milton Road 53 Milton Road 70 Milton Road 72 Milton Road 138 Milton Road 19 Sandy Lane 21 Springfield Road 32 Springfield Road 40 Springfield Road 42 Springfield Road 72 Victoria Road

7.10 Representations objecting have also been received from West

Chesterton Labour Party (63 Gilbert Road) 7.11 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Principle of development � Overdevelopment � Unacceptably high density � Not suitable for residential area � Short-stay accommodation not suitable for this area � Transient population will have negative impact � Permanent homes needed � No affordable housing � Hotel not needed � Should be considered only if it is counted as a hotel use � Tries to avoid planning obligations � Negative impact on nearby bed and breakfast businesses � Building not suitable for conversion if business fails � Development should not be approved until a plan for West

Chesterton has been agreed � Sui generis application unacceptable

Context and design � Unaesthetic � Industrial appearance � Hideous � Poor design � Out of character � Too high � Infringes building line � Too close to pavement � Entrance inappropriate � Roof terrace inappropriate � At odds with 1930’s architecture of area � Materials not suitable � Signage should be discreet � Loss of tree � Tree planting insufficient � Tree planting vital � Site access inadequate � No larger apartments

Residential amenity � Overlooking to Mayfair Court

� Overshadowing � Visual domination

Sustainability � Unsustainable � Poor bus transport

Highway issues � Highway safety � Threat to cycle safety � Lost opportunity for improving junction � Congestion � Needs pedestrian through route to CCFC site

Car and cycle parking � Car parking � Inadequate cycle parking

Other matters � Local drainage issues � Issue of underground drain � Air quality

7.12 Representations supporting the proposal have been received from

the occupiers of the following addresses:

11 Victoria Avenue 16 Milton Road 72 Chesterton Road 6 Milton Road Cambridge Chambers of Commerce (Enterprise House, Vision Park, Histon) Cambridge Manor Care Home (7 occupiers) Belgrave Communications on behalf of 8 local businesses, some of which have commented in their own right

7.13 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Principle

� Good for business � Will support Cambridge’s innovative and forward thinking

businesses and so help the local economy � Appropriate for the area � Employment opportunity � Benefits to community through extra customers and community

space � Facilities will enhance the area � Improvement on unused land � Asset for visitors to the care home Design � Attractive design � Creates an attractive footway area � Corner of the building will stand out attractively � Adequate car and cycle parking � More blue badge parking spaces

7.14 Following the submission of amended drawings, the occupiers of

the following addresses submitted additional comments. All of the representations stated that the amendments made no difference to their earlier objections.

3 Ascham Road 36 Gilbert Road 6 Gurney Way 70 Milton Road

7.15 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 development 2. Context of site, design and external spaces 3. Public Art 4. Renewable energy and sustainability 5. Disabled access 6. Residential amenity 7. Refuse arrangements 8. Highway safety 9. Car and cycle parking 10. Third party representations 11. Planning Obligation Strategy

Principle of Development

Cambridge Local Plan 2006

8.2 The application site forms part of the allocated site 5.13 in the

Cambridge Local Plan 2006. This site is allocated for housing and community facilities. The Cambridge Local Plan 2006 is silent on the question of aparthotels, and makes no suggestion that any kind of visitor accommodation can be regarded as ‘housing’. In this context, it is my view that the aparthotel proposed here is not ‘housing’. (This view is endorsed by the applicants, who have provided counsel’s opinion to support this view). As the aparthotel is not housing or a community facility, the use of the site for this purpose is in conflict with the site allocation and accordingly with policy 5.1. I acknowledge that five houses are proposed in the application, but they are a relatively minor element of the proposal, and do not alter the fact that the major part of the application is for a use not included in the site allocation.

8.3 The applicants have suggested that because the 2006 local plan is now late in its lifespan, the 2014 Local Plan Proposed Submission having been sent to the Inspectorate for examination, and because this site has no allocation in the Proposed Submission, the allocation in the present plan will inevitably lapse in the relatively near future, and should therefore not be allowed to restrict development on the site. I acknowledge that the allocation has a relatively short life ahead of it, but it remains the current development plan. The 2006 Plan has been assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, and no conflict between Policy 5/1 (which covers allocated housing sites) and the provisions of the Framework has been identified. Housing need in the city remains high. The application site was not considered for inclusion in the emerging plan as an allocated site for housing because, following the completion of the adjoining care home, the residual portion of the former primary school curtilage fell below the size threshold for sites to be considered; it was not omitted because of unsuitability or absence of need. In my view its reduced size does not extinguish its value as a potential housing site, and while the 2006 Local Plan remains in force, it is my view that the Council should seek to achieve that use for the site. I do not consider that there is any reasonable case for setting aside this allocation before a new local plan comes into force.

8.4 The applicants argue that housing is not deliverable on this site

because the applicants, who own the site, do not wish to use it for that purpose. In my view, however, this is not a strong argument. An extant permission for residential development on the site exists, and will remain valid, because the relevant permission (07/0328/FUL) has been partially implemented by the construction of the care home. The extant permission could be implemented.

8.5 The applicants also argue that the Council has accepted the

principle of non-residential development on this site, in that, in refusing permission for a Class C2 ‘extra care’ facility on the site under 11/0091/FUL, it did not cite any conflict with the site allocation. I do not accept this argument, because the two types of development are not similar. The ‘extra care’ facility previously proposed, although within Class C2, would have provided permanent accommodation for residents, and would have been different from standard ‘housing’ only in that some of the residents would have been provided with an element of

care; the aparthotel would provide accommodation for visitors who would remain in the city for no more than 90 days.

8.6 In my opinion, the principle of the development is unacceptable,

being in conflict with site allocation 5.13 in the proposals schedule of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and hence with policy 5.1 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and government guidance in paragraphs 47 and 50 of the Framework

Cambridge Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission

8.7 Limited weight can be attached to the Cambridge Local Plan

2014 Proposed Submission. While it has reached the stage of examination there remains some uncertainty about its policies because of the objections submitted, and the Plan could therefore be amended. I have nonetheless considered the implications of its provisions. Policies 21, 45, and 77 of the emerging plan are all relevant to the acceptability of the principle of an aparthotel on this site. All of these policies are the subject of objections.

8.8 Policy 21 of the 2014 Proposed Submission defines a

Mitcham’s Corner Opportunity Area, and defines criteria for acceptable development within it. The application site is within the opportunity area. In my view the application is in accordance with the criteria, or could be brought within those criteria via Section 106 provisions.

8.9 Policy 21 does, however, require a masterplan for the

opportunity area to be in place before any application can be approved.

8.10 Policies 45 and 77 of the 2014 Proposed Submission taken

together require that aparthotels be treated as housing for the purposes of affordable housing policy, and that therefore an application of this type would be required to include affordable housing in accordance with policy 45. The applicants argue strongly in their submission that these policies are wrong, and that aparthotels should not be treated as housing. In my view, this is a matter for the Inspector to decide when the emerging plan is subject to examination. Until this happens, very little weight can be attached to the policies.

8.11 In summary, the principle of development on this site falls to be considered under the Cambridge Local Plan 2006; little weight can be attached to the relevant policies in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission, because they are the subject of objections, and have not yet been subject to examination. Under Policy 5.1 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, which is compliant with the Framework, the proposed aparthotel is in conflict with the site allocation for housing, and is therefore not acceptable.

Affordable Housing

8.12 I have indicated above why I do not consider that a contribution

to affordable housing can be sought from this application. The proposal does not create a conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 5/5 and 10/1 or the Affordable Housing SPD (2008)

Context of site, design and external spaces

Scale

8.13 I share the view of the Urban Design and Conservation team

that the scale of the current proposal is appropriate. I note the view widely expressed in representations that the building proposed is too high, and inappropriate for a suburban context, but I do not agree with this view. The context is a transitional one, in which development of a predominantly two-storey and domestic character stretches away from the site up Gilbert Road and Milton Road, but the areas to the west and south have a more urban character and contain buildings on a larger scale. The proposed building will not feature in distant views, and I consider that from the immediate vicinity, the proposal would respond appropriately to this transitional context. The Gilbert Road elevation would have its third and fourth storeys significantly set back from the street frontage, and strongly articulated in a manner which would diminish its perceived scale. The corner building would have its fourth storey set back, and in my view its scale would be appropriate between the three storeys of the care home to the south and the two-storey houses to the north on Milton Road. I do not agree with the view put forward in some representations that the building is of an unacceptably high density, or overdevelopment of the site.

8.14 In my view, the Gilbert Road range and the corner element would be significantly less dominant in the streets concerned than the extant permission on the site, even though it would be 3m closer to the footway. That extant permission has a main roof height at 12m above ground; the ‘shoulder’ of the third storey is at 9.8m above ground, and the set-back above this, on the eastern of the two blocks, is less than 1m. By contrast the perceived ‘shoulder’ of the present proposal is at 8m above ground, above the first floor with the second floor set back mostly by a metre above that, and the main bulk of the third floor is set back by 6.6m, only the monopitch roof elements protruding forward of this line. The main roof, at 13.2m above ground would be sufficiently set back to have a low prominence from Gilbert Road.

8.15 The plant enclosures above the rear and southern wings would

rise to 16m, but these would be of limited extent, would not visible from Gilbert Road because of their position, and would only be visible from a short stretch of Milton Road. They would be lower than the roof of the Westbrook Centre, 40 to the west and in my view they would have little visual impact.

Massing

8.16 In my view, the massing of the proposed building would make a

positive contribution to the character of the area. It blends a number of different elements, including the third-floor monopitch roofs, the polygonal corner building and the glazed entrance area into a coherent whole which would lend interest and distinctiveness to this corner, but would not in my view read discordantly against any of the existing buildings nearby. As I have indicated above, it is my view that the greater articulation of this proposal would render it less dominant in the Gilbert Road street scene than the residential scheme which has extant permission.

Elevations

8.17 I share the view of the urban design and conservation team that

the elevations are well-resolved. The chimney, pitched roof and set-back components of the Gilbert Road elevation are successful in my view in creating articulation which avoids the impression of a bulky and dominating building. These elements, whose appearance, in my view, would not be ‘industrial’ would

create visual links with the existing buildings on Gilbert Road. They do not attempt to mimic the prevailing 1930’s vernacular architecture of that street and Milton Road, but the rhythms created by fenestration, roofs and chimneys create a degree of affinity. Although the Gilbert Road elevation is closer to the highway than that of the equivalent buildings in the extant permission, I am of the view that this is acceptable provided this proximity is moderated by the insertion of large-scale trees on the highway verge, a matter which I discuss further below. There is no clear building line on this part of the west side of Gilbert Road. It would not be reasonable to suggest that buildings on this site followed the diagonal set-back line of the houses immediately to the north. The acceptability of buildings on the street frontage here has been accepted in the extant permission. I consider that the amendment to the upper floor of the corner pavilion, as sought by both Panel, and the urban design team, is a successful modification which improves the coherence of the building. In my view, this element of the building is a significant improvement over the extant permission.

Materials

8.18 In my view the materials proposed for the development are

appropriate. There are a number of features I regard as particularly positive. The red brick proposed would allude to the use made of that material in houses on Gilbert Road, and would create a visual affinity between the elevation on that street and its context to the north. The stone finish proposed for the corner element would lend visual weight to this part of the building, which is appropriate at this prominent junction. I share the view, expressed in some of the representations supporting the application, that this element would lift the quality of the area, but I agree with the conclusions of Design Panel that the choice of stone, and the manner of its jointing would need to be carefully controlled by condition if this positive impact is to be achieved.

Landscaping

8.19 There are three concerns about landscaping in this scheme: the

extent of shading to the townhouse gardens and the aparthotel courtyard, and the deliverability of street trees on Gilbert Road. The townhouse gardens would have a high degree of shading. However, the principle of a terrace of houses with north-facing

gardens in this part of the site was accepted at the time of the extant permission. The shape of the site makes it difficult to avoid such a feature, and in my view it would be unreasonable to deem it unacceptable at this stage.

8.20 I accept that the aparthotel courtyard would also have a

relatively high degree of shading, although the ‘gap’ in the SW corner of the aparthotel building would allow a significant degree of sunlight top enter the space in the middle of the day. This space would not be the amenity space for permanent residents, but for visitors, and in my view, it would not be reasonable to refuse an application for a commercial operation providing visitor accommodation on the basis of shadowing of the courtyard.

8.21 I acknowledge that the provision of large-scale trees on the

Gilbert Road frontage is very important to the quality of this proposal. Information has not yet been provided on the detail of underground service layouts in the highway verge, or on the acceptability to the highway authority of trees of an appropriate scale in this position. However, the highway authority’s comments made no objection to the proposed tree positions. In my view, the risk that tree planting in these locations would prove undeliverable is sufficiently low that this issue can be addressed by condition. I am satisfied that the proposals for tree and other planting elsewhere on the site are acceptable subject to condition. I acknowledge the concern amongst respondents about the loss of the prominent tree on the corner, but the principle of the loss of this tree has already been accepted by the extant permission.

Amendments

8.22 The following concerns expressed by the urban design and

conservation team have been resolved by the amended drawings submitted on 17th April 2014. The most important of these is the creation of a rounded polygonal form for the third floor of the corner element, set back from the lower floors, but echoing their shape. � ground floor masonry element � columns at the ground floor below the stone clad part of

the building � dark grey panel

� lintel above the large glazed section � signage � roof details for maintenance and access � upper floor set back ‘box’ at corner � glazed balustrade � blank glazing section to ground floor female WCs � junctions between glazed panel and masonry � boundary treatment on Gilbert Road � windows at the ends of corridors � definition between the ground floor and first floor on rear

elevation � proposed ‘cleaning cupboard’ behind the full height

glazing � absence of windows in staff room � stair access car park void � materials for dormers � landscape buffer strip between ground floor rooms and

the footway � ground floor courtyard openings

8.23 Discussions with the applicants have established that the

following concerns expressed by the urban design and conservation team were the result of errors or lack of clarity in the original drawings. These have all been corrected, resolved or clarified.

� finish of the plant enclosures � materials for the 4th storey corridor � PV panels � openings adjacent to the car park ramp

8.24 The remaining concerns of the urban design team were about

trees along Gilbert Road, the service yard gate, the car park entrance details, and the height of the third floor corridor. The last two of these can in my view be addressed by condition, and I have given my reasons above for suggesting that the trees can be addressed by the same mechanism. The applicants have not reduced the height of the third floor corridor, but I do not consider that this factor is a sufficient shortcoming to merit refusal of the application.

8.25 The previous application, 11/0091/FUL, for an ‘extra care’ facility, was refused on design grounds because of its overall length, height, and mass (within which the recessed sections and glazed component provided insufficient relief), the design of

the corner roof and limited articulation of the remainder of the roof, the modelling of bays and balconies, the proportions and detailing of the private residential block, the selection of materials, and their distribution on the elevations, and the landscaping. In my view, the present application addresses these issues satisfactorily, by providing substantial interest and articulation through the chimneys, monopitch roofs and setbacks on the Gilbert Road elevation, producing a considerably improved design for the town houses, introducing a distinctive, better-proportioned and appropriate corner element, and selecting a more coherent, better-distributed and higher-quality palette of materials. In my opinion the proposal is compliant in design terms with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12, and would bring a significant uplift to the character of the area when compared with the residential scheme for which permission is extant.

Public Art 8.26 The applicants have submitted a Public Art Delivery Plan, which

includes an artists’ brief and an engagement programme. They have identified key stakeholders who they would seek to involve. I am of the view that the submissions form a basis from which a satisfactory public art contribution on site could be achieved. A Section 106 Agreement could additionally secure a financial contribution in the event that the on-site solution proved unachievable

8.27 In my opinion subject to appropriate clauses in a Section 106

Agreement, the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 10/1 and the Public Art SPD 2010

Renewable energy and sustainability

8.28 The sustainability officer has indicated that it would be desirable

for the scheme to show a more robust approach to sustainability in the areas of sourcing of materials and water conservation. The sustainable drainage officer supports the overall approach to drainage, but recommends a condition to secure various details. In my view, the materials and water conservation issues can be addressed by informatives. A condition is in my view the appropriate mechanism to address the drainage officer’s concerns

8.29 In my opinion the applicants have suitably addressed the issue of sustainability and renewable energy and, subject to conditions, the proposal is in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/16 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2007.

Disabled access

8.30 The Access Officer has expressed disappointment about a

number of shortcomings of the internal design of the building. I agree with these points. However, the aparthotel would have satisfactory access from the exterior, and I do not consider its internal shortcomings are sufficient to cause a conflict with policy 3/7 or 3/12. They should be addressed, however, by an informative.

8.31 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 3/12.

Residential Amenity Privacy 8.32 Although the proposed buildings would face existing residential

buildings on the opposite sides of both Milton Road and Gilbert Road, the intervening distance would be 28m in the case of 2-12 Gilbert Road and 25m in the case of the side gable window of 35 Milton Road, and the front elevation of Mayfair Court and 70 Milton Road. In my view, these distances are sufficient to prevent significant loss of privacy in these directions especially given the fact that the occupiers of Mayfair Court and 70 Milton Road are exposed to overlooking from highway users, and passing and standing traffic, including double-deck bus passengers, throughout the day. In my view, the privacy of the occupiers of 11 Gilbert Road would be sufficiently protected by the distance of the terrace of town houses from the front of the neighbouring house, the orientation of windows, and the position of the numerous existing trees in this location. The aparthotel would have two rooms on each of the first, second, and third floors facing towards the existing care home at a distance of 10m. This would erode the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers to some extent, but given the proposed tree planting in the intervening space, I am of the view that it

would not cause sufficient harm to require refusal of the application.

Light

8.33 I do not consider the proposed buildings to be close enough to

any neighbouring buildings to compromise the daylight reaching them. The proposal lies to the north of the care home and to the north-east of the Westbrook Centre, and would not have any impact on sunlight to those buildings. The trees on the common boundary with 11 Gilbert Road are of such height that I do not consider the proposed buildings would have any significant impact on morning sunshine in this direction. The proposed buildings would lie to the southwest of 2-12 Gilbert Road, and 35 Milton Road, and to the west of Mayfair Court and 70-74 Milton Road; but the distance of these buildings from the proposed buildings would be such that any loss of sunlight could only be when the sun was at a very low angle, and in my view, would not be significant.

Visual domination and enclosure

8.34 I do not consider that the combination of height and proximity to

any of the neighbouring buildings is such that any unacceptable visual domination or sense of enclosure would be created.

8.35 In my opinion the proposal adequately respects the residential

amenity of its neighbours and I consider that in this respect it is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/7.

Refuse Arrangements

8.36 The Waste Strategy Manager has indicated that insufficient

information about collection arrangements has been submitted. This shortcoming can be addressed by condition.

8.37 In my opinion, subject to conditions, the proposal is compliant in

respect of waste and recycling with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12.

Highway Safety

8.38 The proposal makes no alterations to the existing access road layout or junction with the highway. The highway authority is of the view that the development is likely to lead to only a minimal increase in trips over the previous use. Given this background, I do not consider that the application is likely to create any threat to highway safety. I acknowledge that the redevelopment of this site offered an opportunity to reconfigure the Milton Road / Gilbert Road junction, which might have created an enhanced environment for cyclists. I also acknowledge that there is the theoretical possibility of creating a pedestrian and cycle route through to the Westbrook Centre (although the present application scheme would not eliminate this possibility). However, there is no policy basis for requiring either of these improvements to be included in a scheme on this site, and it would not be reasonable to refuse permission on the basis that they are absent from it.

8.39 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/2.

Car and Cycle Parking

Car Parking 8.40 The application proposes 80 car parking spaces underground,

of which 5 would be accessible, 7 surface car parking spaces for the town houses, and 6 car parking spaces, of which three would be accessible, for the adjoining care home. The City Council’s Standards have no reference to aparthotels, but this provision lies between the maximum which would be permitted for a 133-bedroom hotel, which would be between 35 and 45 spaces, depending on the number of resident staff, and the maximum permitted for a residential development of 133 units, which would be 133 spaces. The highway authority has sought clarification on how this total has been arrived at. However, it appears to me that although the total provision made is above the maximum level which would be permitted for a hotel, it would be unreasonable to refuse permission on these grounds, as I accept that the longer stay times expected of aparthotel occupiers when compared to conventional hotel guests means that they are probably more likely to use a car.

8.41 The total car parking spaces is not above the maximum which would be permitted in a residential development. Notwithstanding neighbour concerns on this issue, it appears reasonable to me to accept a level of car parking below the maximum permitted, both because of the aparthotel use, and because of the location, which is adjacent to bus routes, and readily walkable from the city centre.

8.42 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/10. Cycle Parking 8.43 The application proposes 150 spaces, split between the surface

and the underground area. This is above the minimum required by City Council Standards, whether the use is considered as residential or hotel.

8.44 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/6.

Environmental Health Issues

8.45 The environmental health team have indicated that the proposal would lead to a deterioration in air quality, and offers no mitigation against this impact. I am of the view that this issue could be addressed by contributions under a Section 106 agreement towards measures which would reduce emissions from traffic. At present, however, no progress has been made towards such an agreement, and therefore the proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of potential pollution, and contrary to policy 4/13 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. Third Party Representations

8.46 I have addressed the issues below in the paragraphs identified.

Overdevelopment 8.13 Unacceptably high density 8.13 Not suitable for residential area 8.3-8.6, 8.11 Short-stay accommodation not suitable for this area

8.3-8.6, 8.11

Transient population will have negative impact

8.3-8.6, 8.11

Permanent homes needed 8.3-8.6, 8.11 No affordable housing 8.3-8.6, 8.11 Hotel not needed 8.3-8.6, 8.11 Should be considered only if it is counted as a hotel use

8.3-8.6, 8.11

Tries to avoid planning obligations 8.10 Building not suitable for conversion if business fails

8.3-8.6, 8.11

Unaesthetic 8.16-8.18, 8.22, 8.25

Industrial appearance 8.17 Hideous 8.13-8.25 Poor design 8.13-8.25 Out of character 8.13-8.25 Too high 8.13 Infringes building line 8.17 Too close to pavement 8.17 Entrance inappropriate 8.16-8.18 Roof terrace inappropriate 8.16-8.18 At odds with 1930’s architecture of area 8.17 Materials not suitable 8.18 Signage should be discreet 8.22 and potential

condition Loss of tree 8.21 Tree planting insufficient 8.21 Tree planting vital 8.21 Site access inadequate 8.38-8.39 Overlooking to Mayfair Court 8.32 Overshadowing 8.33 Visual domination 8.34 Unsustainable 8.28 Poor bus transport 8.41 Highway safety 8.38-8.39 Threat to cycle safety 8.38-8.39 Lost opportunity for improving junction 8.38-8.39 Congestion Needs pedestrian through route to CCFC site

8.38-8.39

Car parking 8.41-8.42 Inadequate cycle parking 8.43-8.44 Air quality 8.45

8.47 The following issues raised in representations are not covered above.

Negative impact on nearby bed and breakfast businesses

Local drainage issues Issue of underground drain No larger apartments Development should not be approved until a plan for West Chesterton has been agreed

Sui generis application unacceptable 8.48 The commercial impact on other visitor accommodation

businesses is not a planning consideration in this application. The sustainable drainage officer has indicated that drainage issues can be addressed by condition. Setting aside temporarily the non-acceptability of an aparthotel on this specific site in policy terms, I am of the view that there is no necessity for aparthotels to provide larger units in order to be acceptable generally in the city. There is no policy basis in the local plan to require the postponement of applications on this site until a West Chesterton Masterplan has been developed. The objection to a sui generis application was based on a misapprehension that this would enable a change to any other use without planning permission. Planning Obligations

8.49 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 have

introduced the requirement for all local authorities to make an assessment of any planning obligation in relation to three tests. If the planning obligation does not pass the tests then it is unlawful. The tests are that the planning obligation must be:

(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.

8.50 In bringing forward my recommendations in relation to the Planning Obligation for this development I have considered these requirements

8.51 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) provides a framework for expenditure of financial contributions collected through planning obligations. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide provides advice on the requirements for internal and external waste storage, collection and recycling in new residential and commercial developments and the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010 addresses requirements in relation to public art. The applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a S106 planning obligation, but are unwilling to enter into detailed negotiations in a context in which the application is likely to be refused on policy grounds. The proposed development triggers the requirement for the following community infrastructure:

Open Space 8.52 The Planning Obligation Strategy requires that all new

residential developments contribute to the provision or improvement of public open space, either through provision on site as part of the development or through a financial contribution for use across the city. The proposed development requires a contribution to be made towards open space, comprising outdoor sports facilities, indoor sports facilities, informal open space and provision for children and teenagers. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows.

8.53 The application proposes the erection of five four-bedroom

houses. A house or flat is assumed to accommodate one person for each bedroom. The totals required for the new buildings are calculated as follows:

Outdoor sports facilities Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

studio 1 238 238 1 bed 1.5 238 357 2-bed 2 238 476 3-bed 3 238 714 4-bed 4 238 952 5 4760

Total 4760

Indoor sports facilities Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

studio 1 269 269 1 bed 1.5 269 403.50 2-bed 2 269 538 3-bed 3 269 807 4-bed 4 269 1076 5 5380

Total 5380

Informal open space Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

studio 1 242 242 1 bed 1.5 242 363 2-bed 2 242 484 3-bed 3 242 726 4-bed 4 242 968 5 4840

Total 4840

Provision for children and teenagers Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

studio 1 0 0 1 bed 1.5 0 0 2-bed 2 316 632 3-bed 3 316 948 4-bed 4 316 1264 5 6320

Total 6320

8.54 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure the

requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) and in a accordance with the Cambridge City Council Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation (2010), the proposal is in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/8 and 10/1 and the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010 and the Cambridge City Council Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation (2010).

Community Development

8.55 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) requires that all new

residential developments contribute to community development facilities, programmes and projects. This contribution is £1256 for each unit of one or two bedrooms and £1882 for each larger unit. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows:

Community facilities Type of unit £per unit Number of such

units Total £

1 bed 1256 2-bed 1256 3-bed 1882 4-bed 1882 5 9410

Total 9410

8.56 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010), the proposal is in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 5/14 and 10/1 and the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010.

Waste

8.57 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) requires that all new

residential developments contribute to the provision of household waste and recycling receptacles on a per dwelling basis. As the type of waste and recycling containers provided by the City Council for houses are different from those for flats, this contribution is £75 for each house and £150 for each flat. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows:

Waste and recycling containers Type of unit £per unit Number of such

units Total £

House 75 5 375 Flat 150

Total 375

8.58 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010), the proposal is in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7, 3/12 and 10/1 and the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010.

Household Recycling Centres 8.59 A network of Household Recycling Centres is operational

across the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area. Continued development will put pressure on the existing facilities and require expansion of the network. Financial contributions are required in accordance with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012). These contributions vary according to the nature and scale of the proposed development and are based on any additional costs for the relevant local authority arising out of the need for additional or improved infrastructure, which is related to the proposed development.

8.60 The adoption of the Waste Management Design Guide SPD

requires a contribution to be made in relation to all new development where four or more new residential units are created. Policy CS16 of the adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires new development to contribute towards Household Recycling Centres (HRCs) consistent with the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD.

8.61 For new development in Cambridge the relevant HRC is located

at Milton. The following table sets out how the contribution per new dwelling has been calculated for the Milton HRC.

Notes for Milton Infrastructure/households Source

4 sites at £5.5 million

£22 million

Cost per site sourced from Mouchel Parkman indicative costs 2009

Total catchment (households)

115,793

WMT Recycling Centre catchment tables CCC mid 2009 dwelling figures

New households 24,273

CCC housing trajectory to 2025 as of December 2010

Infrastructure costs Total number of households in catchment

x New households in catchment

£22 million 115,793

x 24,273 = £4,611,730

Total Developer Contribution per household = £190

The net gain is 5, therefore the necessary contribution towards HRC is £950

8.62 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure the

requirements of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012), I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan (Core Strategy Development Plan Document July 2011) policy CS16.

Education

8.63 Upon adoption of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) the

Council resolved that the Education section in the 2004

Planning Obligations Strategy continues to apply until it is replaced by a revised section that will form part of the Planning Obligations Strategy 2010. It forms an annex to the Planning Obligations Strategy (2010) and is a formal part of that document. Commuted payments are required towards education facilities where four or more additional residential units are created and where it has been established that there is insufficient capacity to meet demands for educational facilities.

8.64 In this case, five additional residential units are created and the

County Council have confirmed that there is insufficient capacity to meet demand for pre-school education/primary education/secondary education/lifelong learning. Contributions are not required for pre-school education, primary education and secondary education for one-bedroom units. Contributions are therefore required on the following basis.

Pre-school education Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

1 bed 1.5 0 2+-beds

2 810 5 4050

Total 4050

Primary education Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

1 bed 1.5 0 2+-beds

2 1350 5 6750

Total 6750

Secondary education Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

1 bed 1.5 0 2+-beds

2 1520 5 7600

Total 7600

Life-long learning Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

1 bed 1.5 160 2+-beds

2 160 5 800

Total 800 8.65 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure the

requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the proposal is in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 5/14 and 10/1 and the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010

Transport

8.66 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 Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan.

8.67 The Highway Authority has made an assessment of the

proposal, which is summarised in paragraphs 6.11 and 6.12 above. As it is predicted that only 19.5 additional daily trips by all modes would be generated, a contribution to the NCATP is not required.

Public Art

8.68 The development is required to make provision for public art

and officers have recommended as set out in paragraphs 8.26 to 8.27 above that in this case provision for public art should ideally be made on site.

8.69 In the absence of a S106 planning obligation to secure this infrastructure provision, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 10/1 and the Public Art SPD 2010.

Monitoring

8.70 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) requires that all new

residential developments contribute to the costs of monitoring the implementation of planning obligations. The costs are calculated on the basis of 5% of the total sought under the various headings. Contributions are therefore required on that basis.

Planning Obligations Conclusion 8.71 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 Although the design of the proposed building is appropriate for

the context, and it would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the aparthotel use is not acceptable because it is in conflict with the site allocation, which reserves this site for housing and community facilities. The application also fails to make provision for infrastructure improvements, or to mitigate the effect of a harmful impact on air quality. Refusal is recommended.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. REFUSE for the following reason/s:

1. The application proposes a use which is predominantly neither housing nor a community facility on a site allocated for these two uses in the local plan, contrary to policy 5.1 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, site allocation 5.13 in the Proposals Schedule of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and government guidance in Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012

2. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable

deterioration in air quality, and offers no mitigating measures to deal with this impact, contrary to policy 4/13 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012

3. The proposed development does not make appropriate

provision for public open space, community development facilities, education and life-long learning facilities, public art, waste facilities, waste management and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/14, and 10/1

and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan (Core Strategy Development Plan Document July 2011) policy CS16 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010, the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010, and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012

2. In the event that the application is refused, and an Appeal is lodged against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority is sought to allow officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development