PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE Date: 17th July 2002
------Applic. No: C/01/1276 Agenda Item No. : Date Recvd: 27th November 2001 Officer: Kim Winwood Ward: Castle
Site: Land adjacent to 1 Hertford Street, and at 1-3 Chesterton Road, Cambridge
Proposal: Construction of new College Residential Court and associated facilities.
Applicant: Cloverleaf Ltd Magdalene College Cambridge ------
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT
1.1 The application site relates to a plot of land, located on the north side of Chesterton Road, owned by Magdalene College. It is roughly rectangular in shape although includes a dogleg addition which fronts Hertford Street. There is a 5.5m change in ground level across the site, where land slopes steeply upwards towards its rear boundary.
1.2 The site has its main street frontage along Chesterton Road and encompasses Nos.1 and 3. The north boundary extends along the full length of the house and garden of No.5 Magrath Avenue and is separated from it by an existing 4m high brick wall. The east boundary abuts rear gardens of Nos. 1-11 Hertford Street, together with the rear gardens of Nos.5-9 Chesterton Road. The west boundary extends along an existing private access controlled by and serving the neighbouring Clare College. The south side of Chesterton Road, opposite the application site, forms the private Fellows garden extending from the main college building at Magdalene Street.
1.3 The site has a City Centre location, and straddles the boundary line of Conservation Area No.1, where the buildings on the Chesterton Road frontage only are included within the conservation area. There are no listed buildings on site.
Existing Buildings on Site
1.4 The principal buildings on the site are Nos 1 and 3 Chesterton Road. No 1 is a substantial two-storey mid-Victorian property of gault brick with hipped slate roofs and Gothic detailing. Attached at the east end is a servants wing (now 1a), and the whole appears on the 1886 Ordnance Survey Plan as ‘Sunnyside’. Adjacent to the east is No 3, a tall 4-storey brick house, probably slightly later than No1, but again appearing on the 1886 OS as ‘Highclere’. This has Classical (or Italianate) detailing and the first floor rooms are raised up as a piano nobile level.
1.5 To the rear of No 1, and presumably originally its stable and coach house, is No 4 Magrath Avenue. This is a two-storey structure of brick and slate but much altered. Relatively recently it was in use as a funeral parlour. The former Ice Cream factory fronts Hertford Street and is a utilitarian building built originally in the 1950s but added to in haphazard fashion. It has large areas of flat and corrugated roofing over brick and rendered walls.
Existing Use of Site
1.6 Nos.1, 1a and 3 Chesterton Road are currently used as student accommodation. The remaining buildings, The Ice Cream Factory and Funeral Directors have been redundant for some time. In the case of the Ice Cream Factory, ownership of the premises was transferred in 1994 from the City Council to Magdalene College, and since this time the premises have remained vacant.
1.7 Part of the site is currently used as an informal car park for approximately 30 cars, with access taken from Chesterton Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning permission is sought for a new residential court and associated facilities. The proposal requires the demolition of 1a Chesterton Road, the funeral parlour (4 Magrath Avenue) and The Ice Cream Factory.
2.2 The scheme provides for re-development of the site. A new residential courtyard is proposed and stems from a new entrance building, located between and linking into the existing Nos 1 and 3 Chesterton Road. A total of 45 bedsitting rooms are provided, replacing 25 existing.
2.3 Bedsitting rooms are accommodated within the north and west wings of the courtyard development, together with upper levels of the Chesterton Road buildings. Associated facilities include a primary access taken from the new entrance lobby at lower ground floor level within the new entrance building. Offices, a porter’s room, computer and music rooms and 5 new lecture rooms are also accommodated.
2.4 A substantial part of the development provides for a new 150 seat auditorium, sports hall and gym and a 150 seat dining room and café/bar. These elements are located within the development to replace the Ice Cream factory. A new street frontage elevation onto Hertford Street is therefore proposed. A kitchen, staff and shower rooms and plant rooms are to be accommodated adjacent to the Hertford Street frontage.
2.5 Vehicular access is taken from the rear of the site off Magrath Avenue. Here, a 16 space car park, of which 2 spaces are for disabled persons, is located to the rear of the site alongside the boundary with No.5 Magrath Avenue. 158 cycle parking spaces are provided throughout the site both within the rear compound of the site and on the Chesterton Road frontage. A new pedestrian crossing is proposed on Chesterton Road to allow for easy pedestrian and cyclist movement between the main college and this development.
2.6 The scheme also seeks removal of three existing street trees on Chesterton Road, but provides for replacement planting of the same species but in a more suitable and sustainable location. New boundary walls and railings are also proposed along Chesterton Road.
3.0 SITE HISTORY
3.1 None relevant
4.0 PUBLICITY Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes
5.0 POLICY
5.1 Central government advice
PPG1 General Policy and Principles (1997) paragraph 40 states that Section 54A of the 1990 Act requires that applications for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Conversely, applications which are not in accordance with relevant policies in the plan would not be allowed unless material considerations justify a planning permission.
PPG 3 Housing (2000) gives guidance on developing within established residential areas. Emphasis is also placed on making the best use of land, sustainability and securing adequate housing for all groups within the community. PPG 3 encourages the use of previously developed land for housing development and is supportive of such schemes as they can provide an important source of additional dwellings, particularly in town centres. Paragraphs 59-62 advise that car parking standards for housing have become increasingly demanding, and developers should not be required to provide more car parking than potential occupiers might want.
PPG13 Transport (2001) paragraph 4, identifies the government’s objectives of promoting more sustainable transport choices and reducing the need for travel, especially by car. Paragraph 6 suggests ways in which these objectives can be delivered by local authorities, including accommodating housing principally within existing urban areas.
PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) gives guidance on the assessment of proposals for development which affect the character of conservation areas and settings of listed buildings.
PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1993) advises, at paragraph 30, that in cases when planning authorities have decided that planning permission may be granted, but wish to secure the provision of archaeological excavation and the subsequent recording of remains, it is open to them to do so by the use of a negative condition.
PPG23 Planning and Pollution Control (1994), at paragraph 3.21, advises that in cases where the environmental effects are not of sufficient significance to affect the principle of whether the development should be permitted, planning authorities may attach conditions to the outline planning permission requiring particular environmental matters to be considered in more detail at a later stage. At para 3.25 planning authorities are encouraged to use conditions to meet planning goals to protect the environment, where these are relevant to the development proposed.
PPG24 – Planning and Noise (1994) – states at para.12 that planning authorities should consider carefully whether new noise-sensitive development would be incompatible with existing activities. At para 13 a number of mitigation measures are suggested which could be introduced to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise
The Development Plan
5.2 Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995
SP1 Key note sustainable development policy SP3/6 Re-using urban land SP4/1 Housing – scale of development SP4/2 Form of Development SP7/1 Traffic management and road improvement SP7/4 Direct access from new development SP7/7 Cyclists SP7/8 Pedestrian SP7/9 Special Mobility Needs SP12/10 New development SP12/11 Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas SP12/13 Nature and landscape in the built environment SP12/14 Archaeological heritage SP18/19 Urban Conservation SP18/20 University Development
5.3 The Cambridge Local Plan (1996)
EO1 Pollution – noise, smell and air pollution EO3 Pollution – safeguarding rivers, streams and ground water EO5 Re-use and conversion of existing buildings EO7 Energy and resource efficient development & means of transport EO11 Redevelopment and regeneration EO12 Contaminated Land NE7 Structural open space in major new development NE16 Trees of amenity value NE17 Development and existing trees NE18 Landscaping of sensitive sites BE1 Excellence in urban design BE2 Respect for the character of the site and its surroundings BE3 New development – mix of uses BE4 Impact on the townscape or landscape of the surrounding area BE7 Landscaping schemes BE8 Extensions to existing buildings BE13 Access for people with disabilities BE15 Design, public safety and crime BE25 Boundary walls, railings, fences and gates BE26 Bin stores, TV aerials, satellite dishes and other equipment BE29 Demolition in conservation areas BE32 Conservation areas – requirement of development to preserve or enhance BE40 Archaeology – ancient monuments and sites of archaeological importance BE41 Archaeological assessment and evaluation RL3 Open Space – use, facilities and safety measures RL4 Open Space – provision within new housing and other development RL11 Indoor sports facilities – new and replacement facilities RL29 Community access to recreation and leisure facilities HE1 The University of Cambridge and its colleges HE8 Student residential accommodation within existing college sites HE9 Conference facilities ET5 Loss of industrial and storage floorspace TR1 Land use and transport issues TR2 Impact of development proposals upon transport systems TR15 Pedestrian accessibility TR16 Pedestrians – improvement and extensions to the pedestrian network TR17 Cycle accessibility TR18 Cycle parking TR21 Accessibility by people with disabilities and mobility problems TR22 Car parking provision TR26 Hierarchy of Roads TR27 Impact of new development on the road network TR28 Local access roads and roads within developments TR51 Traffic management – car sharing, contract buses and flexible working
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Cambridge City Council (March 2001) – Housing Development and Design Guide – sets out the urban design principles that new development will be expected to meet.
Cambridge City Council (January 2001) – Open Space Standards –provides guidance for the interpretation and implementation of the City Council’s Open Space Standards.
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
Head of Transport Services (on behalf of the Highway Authority)
6.1 Requested a full Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to explain, inter alia, the level of cycle parking provision, particularly in relation to the operation of the auditorium. This was received in March 2002, and following further consultation, clarification was required regarding outstanding issues. A second submission was received on 7 May together with a supporting letter responding to outstanding issues. The following comments have been received based on this additional information and clarify certain issues regarding car parking associated with, and operation of, the development.
Car Parking
It is noted that the site currently has some 30 car parking spaces, and the proposed scheme provides for 16. Clarification was therefore required as to the use of these existing spaces, and for the displacement of them. This has been received. The Head of Transport Services notes:
‘The combination of using car parking that is currently used for other uses (but which, in planning terms, are legitimately usable for car parking), and removal of car parking usage (which would accord with policy aims to remove private non-residential parking from the City central area), would address the concerns of the Authority.
The existing regime of parking control in the area during the normal working day would be adequate to prevent the cars being displaced onto the adjoining streets.
Cycle Parking
The level of cycle parking provision is less than the level required within the Local Plan Parking Standards. However, given the relationship geographically between the auditorium, and the main body of the College, which would be the principle user of the facility, it would be reasonable to assume that a certain level of shared usage of the cycle provision within the main college would be made by students attending the auditorium. On balance, the level of cycle parking proposed is acceptable, given the limited scope for overflow of demand to cause a problem on-street.
Traffic Generation
Whilst historic data is not available for the ice cream factory or the funeral directors, it would be reasonable to assume that such uses would be similar in pattern of generation to light industrial uses. These would be expected to generate some medium-to heavy-vehicle movements, probably in excess of the number associated with the current proposal.
The applicant has provided an anticipated modal split, relying principally on delegates using modes other than the private car to access the site (albeit these modes may be the final leg of a multi-modal trip).
Given the existing on-street parking controls, and that such an approach is in accordance with current local and national transportation policies and objectives, such an approach is justifiable by the Highway Authority.
I remain dubious about the level of turnover of one vehicle per day in the parking spaces within the site, however, given the relatively low number of parking spaces, even if, for a one-day period, this figure doubled or even trebled, the level of traffic would not be seen by the Highway Authority as giving sufficient grounds for a recommendation of refusal over network capacity issues.
Pedestrian Crossing Facility
The applicant has indicated that they will fund the provision of a facility to assist pedestrians in crossing Chesterton Road.
It is accepted that such a facility would be useful, however, the exact type of facility required would be an issue for determination by the Highway Authority,
At it’s lowest level of provision this would be seen as a kerbed refuge, and associated white lining, in Chesterton Road on the development frontage. At the higher level of provision, a zebra or pelican crossing may be required. It is suggested that a sum of monies be provided within a Planning agreement for provision of a facility. The sum being sufficient to install a signalised facility, but with provision to return unspent funds if a lower level of provision is made.
Refuse Collection
It has been confirmed that the Council already uses a three axle, 26 ton, vehicle for collections in this area. It has been stated that this vehicle will also service the new development; therefore the effect of servicing on the area, by a vehicle already operating in that area would not be seen as a justifiable reason to recommend refusal of the application, particularly as, from information supplied by the applicant, collections from the servery will be intermittent.
Traffic Impact of the Proposed Sports Facility
It is now stated that only students will be allowed to use the sports hall.
Away teams are unlikely to travel in a significant number of separate cars; organised transport is more likely.
Therefore, given the restrictions placed on local students it would be unlikely that a significant parking demand for motor vehicles would be generated.
Conclusions:
No objection to the development subject to appropriate informatives relating to construction works which interfere with, or cause disturbance to the Public Highway.
6.2 Head of Environmental Health and Waste Strategy
Previous use of buildings could have lead to ground contamination, depending on the history of the site and the range of materials previously used. A desk top study and site walk over is therefore required. If significant contamination is suspected further investigation should be undertaken.
Recommend conditions for construction hours, construction noise, details of contractors operations, wheel washing, concrete crushers use on site, details of site lighting, noise insulation, fume filtration/ extraction, restricted hours on collections and deliveries, details for storage and disposal of all waste, details of any floodlighting, hours of use relating to gym and sports hall.
6.3 County Archaeology
Records indicate that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential, relating to the Roman town defences and Roman activity outside the town survive. The site should therefore be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation and recommend that this work should be undertaken at the expense of the developer, and secured by a negative condition.
6.4 Anglia Water
No objection to the scheme subject to conditions relating to foul water and surface drainage and that development should not interfere with an existing mains sewer that runs through the site.
6.5 Disability Consultative Panel (meeting 09.01.02)
The panel were very impressed with the proposals which they thought would result in a very usable building. They requested that two disabled parking spaces are provided, in compliance with the 6% provision sought within the Local Plan. Also, sought to ensure that induction loop system is also provided in the emergency telephone within the lift and that the lift is fitted with mirrors to enable wheelchair users to see who is behind them in the lift.
6.6 Conservation and Design Panel (meeting 14.08.01)
A presentation of the scheme was made ahead of its submission as a planning application, however the scheme has not significantly changed since this time.
Panel members were generally impressed with the proposals feeling that the constraints of the site have been approached in a positive way. Some elements were felt capable of further development including the rather formal entrance building and the expression of the centrepiece of the upper courtyard block. There was also comment that whilst the variation of materials was felt to be sensitive to the context, care should be taken to ensure that the two ‘types’ of buildings are not differentiated in a contrived way. Panel were very pleased that the original houses are to be retained, sensitively reused and repaired.
7.0 REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been subject to considerable public consultation. A public meeting was organised by the applicant in December 2001 following the submission of this planning application. The application has also been subject to a Development Control Forum, which was held on 23 January 2002, the minutes of this can be found within the appendix. Most recently a third meeting was held at the Guildhall on May 30 2002 and was attended by Planning Officers, the applicant and Hertford Street Housing Association.
7.2 Public consultation letters have been sent on three separate occasions; once relating to original plans, a second time following receipt of the Traffic Impact Assessment and thirdly on receipt of revisions to this.
7.3 26 letters of objection have been received together with a petition with 48 signatures.
7.4 The following residents have written in, objecting to the original plans:
• 10 Alpha Street - PA Lebus • 12 Alpha Road - AJ Hymans • 65 Alpha Road - EA Steel • 68 Alpha Road - C& H Wingfield • 73 Alpha Street - MA Quinn • 15 Hertford Street - W Pugh • 16 Hertford Street - M Stevns • 17 Hertford Street - M Zeithlyn • 20 Hertford Street - D McKie • 20 Hertford Street - J McKie • 24 Hertford Street - K Ashby • 29 Hertford Street - JM Jeans • 29 Hertford Street - FC Jeans • 31 Hertford Street - Christopher Bird • 40 Hertford Street - A Taylor • 43 Hertford Street - Andrew Bradshaw • 52 Hertford Street - B Parham • 58 Hertford Street - PW & SH Rippon • 5 Magrath Avenue - J & H Hodgson • 15 Magrath Avenue - GM and JV Dunn • 17 Magrath Avenue - G & D Archdale • 19 Magrath Avenue - RJ & J Jones – • 20 Magrath Avenue - S Hearn • 22 Magrath Avenue - P & G Ryan • 34 Magrath Avenue - D Weigall • JL Perry – 13115 Waldemere Drive, Houston, Texas, USA
5 letters of objection have been received relating to the Traffic Impact Assessment:
• 15 Hertford Street - W Pugh • 52 Hertford Street - B Parham • 9 Prince William Court - AG Rees • 181 Victoria Road - KJF Smyth • 210 Victoria Road - E Keymer
7.5 Objections raised on the following grounds:
Parking and Access
• There is just one vehicular access to the site, which is made from Magrath Avenue. Magrath Avenue is a quiet residential cul-de-sac and already has inherent parking problems. Service vehicles would have to wind through the nearby residential streets of Hertford Street, St Lukes and Magrath Avenue, all of which have traffic calming problems and are single lane. • Vehicle access to the site should be made from Chesterton Road or the nearby Clare College site. • The number of proposed car parking spaces is woefully inadequate for the proposed use of the site. • Staff, visitors and conference delegates would wish to park on site, but the limited number of car park spaces would cause an overspill to nearby roads. • Delegates cannot use Park and Ride facilities where conferences last more than one day. • Question the semi-commercial use of the site, which would cause more traffic outside of term time. • Visitors to the site will be able to park on-street in the evenings when concerts are held. • The proposed pedestrian crossing on Chesterton Road would make it even more difficult for residents of Hertford Street and Alpha Road to join the main road because cars would be queuing up to this point. • Concern for illegal parking in-front of the gym entrance on Hertford Street
Residential Amenity
• Concern for height and bulk of buildings on site, and their relationship to rear gardens of Hertford Street • Vents in the roofs of buildings would give out noise, causing disturbance at night • Use of Hertford Street entrance for bar, gym or sports access may cause problems with noise and disturbance.
Residential Amenity in relation to 5 Magrath Avenue
• Loss of privacy and overlooking from the three storey building which runs the length of the house and garden, to include 3 out of four bedrooms and a bathroom. • Loss of sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. • Car parking along the boundary wall will cause noise and fumes • During construction, our home and garden will suffer from extreme construction noise and filth. • Concern for household security from the new access into the site, especially if materials are piled against the boundary wall during construction • Presence of student accommodation so close to the house and garden will cause increased noise and disturbance • Light pollution from rear windows and car park • Object to change in use of site from quiet residential to commercial
Subsidence
• A number of residents are concerned that the proposal will cause further subsidence to their homes, many of which have already had extensive underpinning.
Traffic Impact Assessment (original submission)
• Whilst the report examines in detail the traffic impact on the principal highway network, it totally fails to address the impact on local roads to the satisfaction of local people. • Appendix B ‘Servicing’ is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresents both the present and future position: • Para.1.2 The Council uses 3 axle trucks to collect waste, not “smaller lorries” • Trade waste from the proposed “restaurant” will need to be collected daily not weekly • Para.1.3 General deliveries are not presently delivered to the rear of the site. The New Court will generate significant new deliveries. Current flows to the rear of via Magrath Avenue are nil. In future, laundry for 45 bedrooms will be routed this way. Also food and drink deliveries to serve students and conferences. The trade waste issue has already been raised. • Trade waste from the proposed restaurant will need to be collected daily not weekly.
Conference Traffic
• The TIA states that traffic generation from conferences will be minimised. However evidence from other Cambridge Colleges suggests that on street parking in adjacent residential roads is the norm especially when delegates are drawn from within the Region. • Park and Ride facilities are unsuitable for conference delegates who often arrive later in the evening when the buses serving the park and ride sites are inoperable. • Local streets (Hertford Street and Magrath Avenue) will become congested with frustrated delegates trying to park • There is no mention of concert and theatre goers.
Revised Traffic Impact Assessment
• Concerns remain for deliveries to the site, and state that collection of commercial waste is made on a different day to householders with wheelie-bins. • Transport of food from the main kitchens of Magdalene College to the application site will still result in movement of small vans – how many and how often? • Resident conferences will not take place whilst students are in residence, but what will happen when students are on vacation?
8.0 ASSESSMENT
8.1 The main issues relating to the determination of this proposal are as follows:
1. Principle 2. Demolition of buildings 3. Land contamination and Archaeology 4. Design and Impact of new buildings on Conservation Area 5. Use of Auditorium and Gymnasium 6. Car parking/ Access and Servicing/ Traffic Generation 7. Disabled and pedestrian access 8. Cycle parking 9. Residential Amenity 10. Noise Impacts 11. Trees/ Landscaping 12. Third Party comments 13. Section 106 Agreements 14.
Principle
8.2 Local Plan policy HE8 supports the principle of developing existing College sites for additional student housing, and Local Plan policy HE9 supports new conference facilities within college sites where their compatibility in conservation terms, and their impact on residential properties is acceptable. The principle for development is accepted provided that other relevant development plan policies are satisfied.
Demolition of buildings
8.3 The properties fronting Chesterton Road are within the Central Conservation Area and these will be largely retained with the exception of the servants’ wing of No1. The former coach house and ice cream factory are not in the Conservation Area. The loss of the servants wing is regrettable as it will remove an element of the original floor plan and therefore lessen future understanding of how the building originally functioned. However the building is not listed and a condition requiring a full survey of the building for record purposes will be attached to any Consent. The proposals also involve the removal of ill-considered later additions and the repair of other features of interest of Nos 1 and 3. The coach house has similar functional and historic links with No1. However, it has been substantially altered and is in poor condition. The building is not within the Conservation Area and therefore Consent for the demolition is not required. The same is true of the ice cream factory, but in any case this is not a positive element in the street scene and the proposed replacement building will be a significant enhancement.
8.4 Only the wing of No 1 and some of the substantial areas of fine contemporary boundary wall (which will be rebuilt where possible) technically require Conservation Area Consent. The loss of the wing is regrettable but it is felt to be justifiable to facilitate the wider merits of the development. It is difficult to see how the wing could be retained if the proposals are to take anything like the proposed form, and I am satisfied that otherwise the architects have approached the key historic buildings and features with sensitivity in retaining them within the overall scheme.
8.5 For the above reasons Conservation Area Consent has not been sought for the demolition of buildings, and the proposal remains compatible with the aims of Local Plan policy BE32 Conservation Areas.
Land Contamination and Archaeology
8.6 The redundant Ice Cream factory and perhaps other past uses result in the potential for ground contamination. There may be contaminants due to leaks and spillages at storage areas, on-site disposal of materials or waste products. Accordingly, it is necessary that the applicant carries out a desk top study and site walk over. This requirement can be secured by condition.
8.7 The site falls within an area of high archaeological significance. The applicant is aware of the site’s importance and has already provided supplementary information in support of the planning application, in the form of a written report following trial excavations within the site grounds. Whilst this submission is welcomed, it is necessary to undertake a programme of archaeological investigation, commissioned by the developer at their expense. These matters are capable of being controlled by condition.
8.8 The applicants have accepted their responsibilities to carry out survey and investigation works in relation to both land contamination and archaeological interest. On this basis I am satisfied that the requirements of Local Plan policies EO12, BE40 and BE41 are met.
Design and Impact of new buildings on Conservation Area
8.9 Whilst only the frontage buildings onto Chesterton Road are within the Conservation Area, it is clear that the whole new court will have an impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The most visible building elements will be the two new buildings on the Chesterton Road frontage. The new building between Nos 1 and 3 will be quite formal in design and of three storeys with a hipped slate roof to reflect the predominant roofing material in this part of the conservation area. Similarly the walls will be brick with stone dressings and windows with vertical emphasis take their cue from neighbouring traditional buildings. The upper storey will largely be glazed with oak boarding to make it visually lightweight whilst the projecting gable at second floor is a device to emphasise the main entrance to the court. The lower building to the west of No 1 is of similar materials though this has a projecting oak and glazed bay window. In a sense this is a modern interpretation of the Victorian bays on neighbouring houses and is similar in concept to the architect’s design at Trinity Hall Library.
8.10 Behind the lower element facing the street, the building becomes taller due to the change in levels, and the roofing material changes to clay pantiles. The main courtyard has a stripped Classical feel and continues the use of brick and stone with recessed timber windows and a heavily glazed second floor.
8.11 The accommodation buildings surround two sides of an attractive two-level landscaped courtyard. On the eastern side, is the auditorium and dining hall which is largely glazed within oak frames. Behind is the sports hall with its changing facilities in a replacement building on the Hertford Street frontage. This successfully maintains the feeling of a domestic-scale former light-industrial building in reclaimed brick with a slate roof.
8.12 I feel that the design quite cleverly dovetails a considerable amount of accommodation with good facilities and an attractive setting into the existing street scene. The retention of the main buildings on the Chesterton Road frontage, and the proposal to retain / enhance the key boundary walls means that the most cherished aspects of the current site will be retained. During the life of the application, modifications were made to reduce the feeling of the building between Nos 1 and 3 ‘elbowing-in’ to the street frontage and I feel this now sits quite comfortably and has reduced the impact of the rather austere gable of No3. The scale, proportions, simple detailing and materials should ensure that the buildings on Chesterton Road sit comfortably with their earlier neighbours, whilst the replacement building on Hertford Street is a considerable improvement on the existing buildings.
8.13 Glimpses of the main court and auditorium / sports hall buildings will be possible from the street. I feel that the materials are well chosen however and the reposed style of the building means that it will not visually compete with its older neighbours. Conservation and Design Panel were critical of the centrepiece of the main court building. This has been modified to improve its proportions and is now visually far more successful.
8.14 In summary, I feel that the proposed development will not detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In retaining the major existing buildings on the site, the character will be maintained, whilst the replacement of the Ice Cream factory, improvements to the frontage boundary and the quality of the new buildings will have a positive impact on the character of Chesterton Road and Hertford Street in particular. The proposal is considered in accordance with Local Plan policies BE2, BE4 and BE32.
Use of Auditorium and Sports Hall and Gymnasium
8.15 The Auditorium/ Lecture Room, provides for 150 seats and would become the largest meeting room available to Magdalene College. At present the college does not have a lecture theatre but instead has three public rooms that accommodate at best between 20 and 70 persons. In addition, the college lacks any suitable space for concerts, film shows, drama, or larger meetings, which are therefore held within the College’s Dining Hall (seating 110 persons) at considerable disruption.
8.16 The proposed auditorium would therefore provide a valuable facility for existing and future students at Magdalene College. The lecture room would have projection facilities with good seating, heating and comfort cooling. The auditorium would also be suitable for alternative uses such as film shows, music and drama. The applicant asserts that excellent soundproofing will be achieved, but this can be secured by condition to any Consent.
8.17 Although the principal requirement of the auditorium is to satisfy an internal need, and will be made use of by students of both the New Court development and the wider college, the applicants also acknowledge that the facility will made available for conference use, whether of an academic or non-academic nature. A schedule of likely occupancy has been provided, and can be found at Appendix B.
8.18 It has been confirmed that overnight conferences will be expected to take place out of term time, and that wherever possible, student rooms will be made available to delegates. The applicant does point out however that even in vacation time roughly half of all student rooms remain occupied. Nevertheless, of the remaining student rooms, of which there are some 140, the University wishes to make productive use of them, and indeed are enjoined by government to do so.
8.19 Amended drawings have been received which deletes a bar and kitchen area and instead has been replaced by a café/bar. Although there is a kitchen preparation area on site, this area is for preparation of cold foods and soups, and would not allow for preparation of hot meals. The proposed dining room seats 150 people, but this area would act as a servery whereby meals are prepared off-site within the main college kitchen and are trolleyed over in small vans. The bar element of the café would become a ‘Bottle Bar only’ rather than a permanent bar. Both the dining room and café/bar would only be used intermittently in conjunction with conferences but would not be generally available to students.
8.20 With regard to the gymnasium and sports hall, written confirmation has been received stating that these facilities are for use by University members and conference delegates only. These facilities will not be made available to the public, nor to external sports clubs, but if it is necessary as a result of impact of the use then this can be further secured by condition.
8.21 The Local Plan recognises that provision of accommodation better suited for contemporary teaching and research needs is necessary to maintain the national and international importance of the university. Specifically Local Plan policy HE1 provides the principle for such development, and policy HE9 supports in principle the use of college residential accommodation for delegates, subject to certain conditions which are discussed below. I am therefore satisfied that the inclusion of an auditorium, sports hall and gymnasium can be considered as appropriate within this development, subject to environmental and amenity considerations of the Conservation Area and nearby residents.
Car parking/ Servicing and Access/ Traffic Generation
Car Parking
8.22 The application shows that 16 car parking spaces are provided on site, of which 2 are large enough for disabled users. These car parking spaces are located at the rear of the site, alongside the boundary wall between the site and No.5 Magrath Avenue, and access is made from an existing driveway off Magrath Avenue.
8.23 In terms of the amount of car parking on site, the 16 spaces are adequate and in accordance with Local Plan policy TR22. Given that student rooms are to be used as overnight accommodation by conference delegates, albeit on a sporadic basis, the parking requirement within the Local Plan requires a minimum standard of 1 car space per 4 bedrooms. In this instance there are 45 bedsitting rooms, which therefore equates to 11 spaces. In addition, 2 parking spaces are required for every 5 members of staff. The applicant has provided written confirmation that in terms of employment, the new court will lead to the addition of four new staff, and that 3 spaces will be made available to conference organisers. Accordingly, the provision of 16 spaces is considered acceptable and appropriate. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Local Plan policy TR22.
8.24 Whilst the proposed parking provision remains acceptable in policy terms, it is noted that there will be a net reduction of on-site parking in real terms, as the existing 30 spaces are replaced by 16. Nearby residents have stated their concern regarding the loss of these spaces. The surrounding area is designated within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) which restricts non-resident parking between 9-6pm Monday to Saturday, but does not operate on Sundays. The Head of Transport Services is satisfied that the existing regime of parking control in the area during normal working day would address the concerns of the Highway Authority.
8.25 I note that some residents have raised an issue for off-street parking in front of the Sports Hall on Hertford Street. To avoid this, I recommend that a condition be attached to any Consent, which requires details of boundary treatments that would prevent this from occurring.
Servicing and Access
8.26 Servicing and access to the site from Magrath Avenue is clearly a prime concern to neighbouring residents, who state that Hertford Street and Magrath Avenue is already congested and are not suitable for large vehicles making deliveries and collection from the site.
8.27 Residents have repeatedly questioned why a principle access into the site has not been taken from Chesterton Road. Following pre-application discussion with the Authority, it was determined that Chesterton Road (the City’s ring road) should not be used in this way because Structure Plan policy SP7/4 restricts new accesses onto primary route networks in order to minimise accidents and congestion.
8.28 A Traffic Impact Assessment has been received, and following revisions to this, the Authority is satisfied that the proposal remains acceptable and deliveries to the New Court will not cause undue noise and disturbance or traffic congestion to nearby residents.
8.29 In terms of refuse collection, all waste generated by the site is likely to be stored adjacent to the parking area to the rear of the site, although a suitable condition relating to bin storage areas is recommended. The applicant has provided written confirmation that the Council already uses a three axle, 26 ton, vehicle for collections in this area, and it is this vehicle that will service the new development. Therefore, the effect on the area by a vehicle already operating in that area cannot be seen as a justifiable reason to recommend refusal of the application, particularly as, from information supplied by the applicant, collections from the servery will be intermittent.
8.30 In terms of one-off deliveries of, for example white goods or equipment for the Auditorium, Transport Services are satisfied that drop-offs can be made from Chesterton Road, outside rush hour times. A suitable condition relating to hours of delivery is recommended.
8.31 On this basis I am content that servicing to the New Court development will be acceptable and will not cause inconvenience to nearby residents. Following a meeting with the Hertford Housing Residents Association in May, I am mindful that the applicants have agreed to install a barrier within the site at the Magrath Avenue entrance to be controlled from the main college site which would restrict vehicle entry to legitimate vehicles only. The inclusion of this barrier can be secured by condition.
8.32 On this basis I am content that the proposed access and servicing of the New Court is acceptable and compliant with local plan policies TR26 and TR27.
Traffic Generation
8.33 Again, traffic generation and associated knock-on effects to on-street parking in nearby streets have frequently been raised by nearby neighbours as a strong reason for objection to the application.
8.34 This issue has been addressed within the revised Traffic Impact Assessment, where expected traffic generation by all modes is shown and is attached in Appendix C. Of particular interest is traffic generated from the use of the auditorium. The applicant asserts that information will be provided to all conference delegates to emphasise the lack of nearby on-street parking. Use of alternative means of transport will be encouraged through provision of bus and train information and details of Park and Ride facilities. It is expected that pick-up buses will be provided for delegates arriving at coach and train stations.
8.35 The Highway Authority comments that given existing on-street parking controls, this approach to development is in accordance with current local and national transportation policies and objectives, and is accepted as reasonable by the Highway Authority. Moreover, given the limited number of on-site parking spaces, the level of traffic generated would not be seen to give sufficient grounds for a recommendation of refusal over network capacity issues.
8.36 The applicants have confirmed that the sports hall and gym is for college use only. These facilities are therefore very unlikely to generate significant traffic movements given that students are already subject to proctorial control and are therefore unlikely to own a car in the City. Accordingly, this aspect of the development is unlikely to generate any significant parking demand. To ensure that the sports hall and gym are only available to college users, I would suggest an appropriate condition is included within any Consent.
8.37 For the above reasons I am satisfied that traffic generation arising from this development is acceptable and will not cause significant congestion or increase in existing traffic flows to nearby roads. The applicants state that future students living within the New Court will be subject to proctorial control. Whilst I welcome this, I suggest that this is further secured by condition. Proctorial control would not extend to conference delegates, but they would be encouraged to use alternative modes of transport, as described in paragraph 8.35. The proposal is compliant with Local Plan policy TR27.
8.38 I would also like to point out that although no objection is raised by the Authority regarding traffic generation and on-site parking provision, the applicants have made an informal commitment to support any future changes to the existing CPZ arrangement and for traffic calming measures to be introduced in nearby roads. This issue is not requisite to this application, although residents and the applicant are aware that such projects could be investigated as a separate issue through either the County Council or the City Council’s Engineering Projects team.
Disabled and pedestrian access
8.39 The application has been presented to the Disability Panel and was favourably received. Three lifts are proposed within the building, one servicing the auditorium area, and another 2 within the student accommodation. The main lift is a 10 person lift, the others are 8 person. Within the auditorium, the first two rows of seating are removable to allow for wheelchair users to be comfortably accommodated. A level access can be made to the courtyard area from No.1 Chesterton Road.
8.40 Following advice from the panel, the number of disabled parking spaces has been increased to 2. Specific comments made from the panel are addressed by suggested informatives and Building Regulation requirements. In my opinion provision for disabled users has been carefully considered within the scheme and I am content that the proposal is in accordance with Local Plan policies BE13 and BE14.
8.41 Pedestrian access is made from the new entrance building between Nos.1 and 3 Chesterton Road. This is the primary access into the site, and Members should note that there is no public access from Hertford Street into the sports hall and gym areas, the entrance shown is for servicing use only. A pedestrian link is made from Chesterton Road to Magrath Avenue and beyond therefore non-site users can walk through the building and exit at Magrath Avenue entrance.
8.42 A new pedestrian crossing is proposed on Chesterton Road linking the Fellows Garden of the main college with the New Court. This facility is considered necessary, given the increased pedestrian and cycle traffic expected between neighbouring college sites. The principle for a crossing point has already been agreed with the County Highway Authority, and the applicant has provided written agreement to fund its installation. This element of the scheme is discussed in further detail in paragraph 8.73 below. Accordingly, I am content that this application ensures good pedestrian accessibility and goes some way to improve and extend the City’s pedestrian route network as sought with local plan policies TR15 and TR16 respectively.
Cycle Parking
8.43 Local Plan policy TR22 requires that all site users should be provided with a covered and secure cycle parking space. In this instance, this policy requirement translates to approximately 190 cycle spaces. Amended drawings have therefore been received and now show 158 cycle spaces. The majority of these spaces (110) are located at the rear of the courtyard building and are all housed within covered accommodation. The remaining 48 spaces are located on the Chesterton Road site frontage where 16 spaces are covered, but 32 are proposed to be open – these spaces are located behind the proposed boundary wall and railings.
8.44 The Highway Authority comments that although the full provision has not been met, given the geographic relationship between the site and main college, which is the principle user of the facility, it would be reasonable to assume that a certain level of shared usage of the cycle provision within the main college would be made by students attending the site. On this basis, the Highway Authority raises no objection to cycle parking provision, and I am therefore content that Local Plan policy TR18 is satisfied. I would suggest that details of cycle parking are secured by condition.
Residential Amenity
8.45 Residential amenity must be assessed both for immediate neighbours adjoining the site, and also for those living in surrounding streets – notably Hertford Street and Magrath Avenue. In respect of residents at No.5 Magrath Avenue, which abuts the site on the northern boundary, I have dealt with issues singular to them in a separate section below.
8.46 I note that nearby residents are concerned for the height and bulk of the proposed buildings, in particular in relation to gardens along Hertford Street. Indeed, this application must be assessed against the existing living conditions of residents of these houses, and also for those along Chesterton Road. It has already been established in paragraphs 8.10 – 8.15 ‘Design and Impact of new buildings on Conservation Area’ that the design of the proposed buildings will not cause harm to Conservation Area 1 or to the wider street scene.
8.47 There is a significant change in ground level (5.5m) throughout the site as existing, but this would be addressed at construction stage. A model has been submitted and therefore demonstrates how new buildings would fit into the site and relate to its neighbours.
Impact on Clare College
8.48 The Chesterton Road frontage includes two new buildings, the new entrance building between Nos.1 and 3, and the west wing of the Courtyard. The new entrance building appears subordinate to its existing neighbours. This building is integral to the scheme and therefore causes no harm to Nos.1 and 3 in terms of amenity. The west wing of the Courtyard is located alongside the west site boundary which adjoins the access road leading to Clare College. This element is 45m long, has 2 storeys and is approximately 10m high to its ridge, although given the change in level across the site its height increases along its length. The neighbouring building at Clare College is also two storey and in use as student accommodation. Submitted plans show that a corridor runs the length of the west elevation, facing towards Clare. I am therefore satisfied that there will not be overlooking between habitable room windows, and given the distance separating the existing Clare building, and that proposed, there will be no loss of sunlight or daylight or unacceptable overshadowing.
Impact to Chesterton Road and Hertford Street
8.49 The next consideration relates to the sports hall and auditorium areas of the development. A link is sought from No.3 Chesterton Road to bridge the east side of the courtyard, behind which is the auditorium and sports hall extending eastwards to Hertford Street. No.3 Chesterton Road is an imposing 4 storey building, and all elements of the new build remain significantly lower than this. The building to replace the Ice Cream factory retains the same eaves height as its predecessor, but is approximately 1.8m higher to its ridge level in order to accommodate a badminton court. Firstly, I will address the impact of these buildings on the existing houses, Nos.5-11 Chesterton Road.
8.50 The rear gardens of Nos.5-11 Chesterton Road, which are currently in ownership of the applicant, are separated from the site by high level brick walls, there is also a significant change in ground level between sites. The applicants own these properties and propose to subdivide the rear gardens of Nos.5-11 through a horizontal division, demarcated by a trellis and pergola. Accordingly a communal secondary courtyard is created alongside new buildings, and private rear gardens of Nos.5-11 Chesterton Road are shortened to an average depth of 5m. Access to the courtyard is made from lower ground floor level of the link building, and from the corridor of the sports hall to the east. Residents of existing houses can access the rear secondary courtyard through individual gates within the pergola, but this movement is one-way. Low lying brick walls, 450mm high, are shown and demarcate historical garden boundaries within the communal courtyard, these are low enough to allow for informal seating. The landscaping of this area allows for a sympathetic graduation between the garden areas and the main site.
8.51 I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause harm to living conditions to residents of Nos.5-11 Chesterton Road. The replacement building is located north of these rear gardens, and therefore in terms of sunlight and daylight given its location there will be no detrimental impact. In terms of overshadowing from the link building to the east, I am content that this will be no worse than as existing because No.3, the immediate neighbour to these houses is a 4 storey building. Nevertheless, given the revised garden boundaries, I do not expect overshadowing to extend into these private areas. In my opinion the proposal is therefore compliant with policy BE8 (d).
8.52 In my view outlook from Nos.5-11 will not significantly change given that the Ice Cream factory already extends along rear garden boundaries. That said, I consider the associated landscaping scheme with pergola and trellising will provide effective screening from ground floor windows and is therefore a net gain to the existing situation, providing improved outlook and ensuring privacy. In terms of overlooking, I acknowledge that windows from the development will look into the courtyard area – a communal amenity. Submitted drawings show foyer windows at ground and first floor of the link building to the west, and a window providing light to the corridor of the sports hall beyond is positioned on the north elevation. I am mindful that a bar area was previously proposed at first floor level of the link, but has now been deleted from the scheme. Nevertheless, direct overlooking into first floor windows of Nos.5-11 is unlikely given the angle of view.
8.53 The third aspect to consider regarding this secondary courtyard and houses at Chesterton Road relates to noise and disturbance generated from users of the courtyard. Given that the bar area has been deleted I am confident that there will be less overspill of conference delegates into this area. Nevertheless, the secondary courtyard area is intended as additional amenity space for site users and therefore should be expected to be used. Although there will be a certain degree of noise generated by courtyard use, in my opinion it will be infrequent and would only take place over short periods of time, for example during a conference break mainly during daytime hours.
8.54 Nos.1-11 Hertford Street share a common boundary with the application site. There is a significant change in ground level between the houses on Hertford Street and I am content that there will be little impact or change to living conditions to these residents because the turning head of the car park abuts the common boundary, as is the existing arrangement. The proposal is compliant with Local Plan policy BE8.
Residential Amenity in relation to 5 Magrath Avenue
8.55 No.5 Magrath Avenue is the nearest affected neighbour to the application site and directly abuts the northern site boundary. An existing 4m high stone wall separates the two sites.
8.56 The proposal seeks the location of a car park with 14 spaces alongside the boundary wall. In front of the car park is the north elevation of the rear courtyard building. This is positioned 11m from the boundary, and is three storey high and has a sloping pitched roof 9.7m to ridge level and 6.4m to eaves level, this building is approximately 42m long. The building has been dropped to almost 1.2m below the ground level at the boundary, which therefore reduces the apparent height of the building by about half a storey. Windows are located along the rear elevation, facing Magrath Avenue and serve storage and plant room at ground floor and corridors at first and second floor level.
8.57 Local Plan policies BE2 and BE4 require new development to take account of site constraints, and in this instance the constraint relates to the amenity of residents at No.5. A sunlight/ daylight study was requested to demonstrate the likely overshadowing to the garden and house. Accordingly the applicant has submitted a study, which has been made in accordance with BRE (Building Research Establishment) guidance. This drawing shows the sun path and shadows to the north range of the building. The result is that the existing boundary wall casts a shadow beyond that of the new building at all times throughout the year. In terms of shadow cast by the building itself, at the Spring solstice (21st March) the shadow would extend 2m into the garden area of No.5 at 9am, but as the day progresses beyond 2:30pm there is no shadowing from either the boundary wall or building because of the position of the sun. In my opinion this amount of shadow is acceptable, and I am mindful that the existing boundary wall will already cause a certain amount of shadow into the garden. Therefore whilst I am aware of the concerns of the occupiers, I am unable to agree that the development would cause a significant detrimental effect on the levels of sunlight and daylight received.
8.58 Loss of privacy and overlooking from the three storey building, which runs the length of the house and garden, is also a principle point of concern. The house at No.5 Magrath Avenue is positioned perpendicular to the new building, and accordingly principle ground and first floor windows within the house look directly down the garden rather than facing towards the new development. No.5 benefits from a box dormer addition within the roofslope. A site visit revealed that a first floor window is located within the rear projecting wing and does therefore face into the site. The occupiers of No.5 have confirmed that this is a bathroom window, and therefore in planning terms, this window does not provide light to a habitable room.
8.59 In terms of overlooking and loss of privacy between properties, I am content that the resultant situation will be satisfactory. As described above, first and second floor windows are not to bedsitting rooms. Given the angle of view there will be no direct overlooking between properties, although I acknowledge that given the length of the building, views into windows will be possible but only to windows some 30m distant from the house. In terms of students looking from the corridor windows out over rear gardens, given both the height of the boundary wall and angle of view, I am content that a birds eye view into the garden of No.5 would not be possible because the angle is too oblique, but instead views into gardens at 6 and 7 are more likely yet distances here become in excess of 20m, and therefore would not allow for an unacceptable level of overlooking. The proposal remains consistent with Local Plan policy BE2 and BE4.
8.60 The applicant has provided a report relating to expected noise levels associated with use of the car park. This report clarifies that appropriate surface treatment will reduce associated noise from vehicles entering the site. The report concludes that the highest noise level at the most exposed property in Magrath Avenue (No.5) as a result of vehicle activity on site will be no greater than the existing ambient level. Accordingly, it is concluded that residents in the properties adjacent to the site should not experience noise nuisance as a result of activities on site. The report confirms that the existing boundary wall will act as a noise barrier. Nevertheless, I propose that a condition is added to any consent which provides for a trellis and climbers to be attached to this wall, and for details of surface material to be submitted to the Authority for approval. Both measures are expected to further reduce noise levels.
8.61 I note that occupiers of No.5 have raised issues of increased noise disturbance arising from the intensification of use of the site by students. The immediate areas of the site adjoining the common boundary with their property relate to the car park and servicing. The new building would provide a barrier to the proposed courtyard, which is the main amenity area for the site. On this basis I am satisfied that the development itself will provide an effective barrier to noise generated from site users. I acknowledge that corridor windows could be opened during hot weather, which would allow for a certain amount of noise spillage, nevertheless, student rooms are located beyond this where students would congregate. In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Local Plan policy EO1.
8.62 In terms of light pollution to No.5 caused from lighting of the car park I recommend a condition be attached to any consent requiring details of low level lighting. I am also mindful of light spillage from first and second floor windows at night. This issue has been explored at some length, and the possibility of attaching louvers to the windows has in the past been suggested. However, it has been concluded that this would provide an incongruous addition to the building and would result in a ‘prison’ like façade when viewed from Magrath Avenue. For this reason I do not consider this is an appropriate solution. That said, the building is located 11m from the boundary and I am satisfied that internal lighting will not be severe or cause undue nuisance. It should be noted however that details of external lighting on site require consent, and is secured by condition.
8.63 Finally the occupiers of No.5 have raised issues of security during the construction phase. Any consent should include an appropriate condition requiring details of storage of materials. In this way I consider these concerns can be overcome.
8.64 Whilst I sympathise with the concerns of the residents at No.5, I am satisfied that the scheme is in accordance with relevant development plan policy and is therefore acceptable.
Noise Impacts
8.65 Spillage of site users onto the street causing noise and disturbance at night has been highlighted as a concern for nearby neighbours. I consider that these objections can be positively addressed through the use of an appropriate condition, restricting hours of use to the sports hall and gymnasium as recommended by Environmental Health officers. Nevertheless, it should be noted that all site users would exit the buildings onto Chesterton Road – the city’s ring road, rather than onto Hertford Street.
8.66 Finally, residents are concerned that undue noise and disturbance will be generated from plant on the building. Roof top plant is to be located within flat roof elements between parallel pitched roofs above the auditorium within the east courtyard wing. The plant is therefore set well back from the street and would be hidden from view. I am satisfied that conditions recommended by Environmental Health will ensure that smells, noise and disturbance will be controlled. I also consider that appropriate conditions should be attached to any consent ensuring the plant remains invisible from the street. On this basis I consider the proposal complies with Local Plan policy EO1.
Trees/ Landscaping
8.67 Permission is sought for the removal of three street trees on the Chesterton Road frontage to allow for the realignment of the site boundary. These trees will be replaced by the same species, but in a location sympathetic to the site layout. The proposal then includes new boundary wall and railings along Chesterton Road, the creation of a two tier formal courtyard with raised pool. Existing trees on site will be felled except for those along the north elevation, which have now been incorporated within the car park layout.
8.68 I have recommended a negative condition to ensure that the proposed locations for replacement trees are sustainable in terms of ability for root spread below ground. In terms of the wider landscaping submission, I am satisfied with the proposals subject to appropriate conditions to ensure good quality and design. On this basis I am content that the application is acceptable and compliant with aims of Local Plan policies NE16, NE17 and NE18.
Third Party comments
8.69 These issues have been addressed in the report above, except for subsidence. Subsidence cannot be considered under planning law. However, I have spoken with the Council’s Building Control Officers and relayed residents concern on this matter. I understand that appropriate engineering techniques would prevent subsidence from occurring during construction phase, for example through adoption of piling methods for foundations of buildings.
Section 106 Agreements
8.70 The College has demonstrated that it has sufficient capacity in terms of formal recreation space to provide for the needs of the new residents. However, in terms of informal open space provision additional demand is created by the extra 20 bedsitting rooms on site. Therefore in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance a payment of £5,760 is needed to make up the shortfall. The applicant has provided written agreement to this.
8.71 The proposed pedestrian crossing on Chesterton Road in highway terms is requisite to the scheme, and the Highway Authority has already agreed its principle. Accordingly, I have requested that the applicants enter into a S106 legal agreement to provide commuted payment towards the installation of such a facility, albeit the exact details of which await clarification. A sum of £50,000 has been requested, and written confirmation has been received providing agreement to this.
8.72 On this basis I am content that relevant Local Plan policies RL3 and TR2 have been satisfied.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 The application site has an important city centre location. I am satisfied that the building form proposed would be appropriate to its context and would not detract from the character of the Central Conservation Area, but in fact would enhance its setting and character. I consider that the proposed use of the site as student accommodation, to include a new auditorium, sports hall and gym will not cause harm to nearby residential amenity. On the basis of information submitted I am content that this application conforms with Development Plan policy and government guidance and represents a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and the wider City setting. For the above reasons I recommend that this application is approved subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a commuted sum for the amount of £5,760 in lieu of informal open space being provided on site and £50,000 towards Highway Improvements on Chesterton Road and the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
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.
3 Before starting any brick or stonework, 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.
4 The demolition hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a contract for the redevelopment of the site in accordance with planning permission C/01/1276/FP, or any other scheme approved by the local planning authority, has been let.
Reason: To avoid the creation of cleared sites detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
8 Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning authority 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 The buildings shall not be occupied until the area identified on the approved plans for car parking has been drained and surfaced in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose than the parking of vehicles.
Reason: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and in the interests of highway safety and convenience.
12 No development shall commence until details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted have been 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.
13 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.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development.
14 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.
15 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) is/are occupied and retained thereafter unless any variation is agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate boundary treatment is implemented.
16 Prior to commencement of work on site, a full photographic survey of the former Ice Cream Factory, the former undertakers and Nos 1, 1a and 3 Chesterton Road will be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Three copies of the survey will be prepared and presented to the County Records Office, the Cambridgeshire Collection and the City Planning Department.
Reason: To ensure a complete historic record is preserved of these buildings.
17 A full schedule of works for the repair and reinstatement of external features on Nos 1 and 3 should be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of work on site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of Conservation Area.
18 Notwithstanding information in submitted drawings, details at a scale of 1:10 or greater (including vertical and horizontal sections) will be needed of the different fenestration elements, the eaves and verge details and details of the new walls, railings and gates fronting Chesterton Road.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of Conservation Area.
19 The north and west boundary walls will be repaired, or rebuilt precisely in replica using bricks reclaimed from the original wall unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
20 Notwithstanding submitted plans, a desk top study and site walk over should be conducted to ascertain the level of ground contamination on site. This contamination investigation and any potential remedial plan should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site and the approved remedial measures shall be completed prior to first occupation of buildings.
Reason: To ensure the site is free from contaminants
21 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced (to include any enabling, demolition or construction) the applicant shall submit a report in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 – Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, especially Part 1: 1997 “COP for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations”. Potential noise and vibration levels at the nearest noise sensitive locations shall be predicted.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
22 Full details of wheel washing and dust suppression provisions shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved measures shall be provided on site prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
23 Details of site lighting during the construction phase should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences on site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
24 Notwithstanding submitted plans, a noise and vibration scheme in accordance with BS4142 or similar, detailing plant and/or air handling equipment, associated glazing/building fabric and details of acoustic ventilation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The recommendations of the scheme shall be adopted on first occupation of the building.
Reason: To protect amenity of nearby properties.
25 There shall be no commercial collection or deliveries to the premises outside the hours of 0700 hrs and 2300 hrs on Monday – Saturday and there shall be no commercial collection or deliveries at any time on Sundays or Bank and public holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
26 Details of the arrangements for the storage and disposal of all waste associated with the end use shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved arrangements shall be adopted as part of the development.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
27 The Sports Hall and Gymnasium hereby approved shall only be used by residents of the development, and members and staff of Magdalene College.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
28 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, a security barrier shall be constructed within the site boundary at its Magrath Avenue entrance to restrict entry of unauthorised vehicles into the site. Full details of the barrier shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to commencement of development and the barrier shall be provided prior to commencement of occupation of the development.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
29 Notwithstanding the provisions of submitted plans, a pergola planted with creepers shall be erected on the north boundary wall, in front of the car park area. Details of this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the site is first occupied, and thereafter retained in perpetuity.
Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers at No.5 Magrath Avenue.
30 Prior to commencement of development full details of surface materials within the car park area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To reduce noise and disturbance to residents at No.5 Magrath Avenue.
31 Prior to commencement of development full details of appropriate boundary treatment to the site frontage on Hertford Street shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.
Reason: To avoid obstruction of Hertford Street and in the interests of highway safety and convenience.
32 For the avoidance of doubt all roof top plant shall terminate at or below the pitched roof screen as shown on Drawing No.00.50-E2-D.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
33 Notwithstanding provision of the approved plans, the three lime trees on the street shall not be removed, or development or demolition works take place on site, until full details of tree pit, tree guards and grills 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: To ensure the satisfactory implementation of replacement tree planting and to protect the visual amenity of the area.
34 The Sports Hall and Gymnasium hereby approved shall not be occupied outside the hours 0700 to 2230hrs Monday to Sundays.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
35 The development hereby permitted shall be used only as a hostel for the provision of residential accommodation for students attending full time courses of education at the University of Cambridge and who are subject to proctorial control by delegates attending conferences arranged by Magdalene College, Cambridge.
Reason: Inadequate off-street parking provision is available on site to meet the car parking standards of the City Council for any use other than a sui generis hostel use, the occupation of which is mainly restricted to students who are subject to a system of parking control administered by the University of Cambridge delegates attending the conferences organised by the College and because the use of the building for any other purpose would require re- examination of its impact.
36 Notwithstanding provision of the approved plans, full details of internal lighting to first and second floor corridors of the North courtyard building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties.
37 Notwithstanding provisions of approved plans, the applicant shall submit a copy of draft details that are proposed to be sent to conference delegates regarding transport arrangements to the site for prior approval. Thereafter all conference delegates shall be provided with the approved information.
Reason: To protect residential amenity and to promote alternative modes of transport.
38 The Auditorium hereby approved shall not be used outside the hours of 0700 to 2300hrs Monday to Friday and the auditorium shall not be used outside the hours of 0730 to 2200hrs on Saturday and Sunday.
Reason: To protect residential amenity.
39 Prior to commencement of development full details of bin stores shall be 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 interests of public health.
40 Notwithstanding provisions of approved plans, no building shall be erected within 3 meters of centreline of the public sewer crossing the site.
Reason: To protect existing services
41 Notwithstanding provisions of approved plans, details of foul and surface drainage for the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site. The drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site.
INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in conjunction with the associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) between Cambridge City Council and dated as this decision notice.
INFORMATIVE: New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passersby. 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 that where a proposal involves work on an existing wall shared with another property, building on the boundary with a neighbouring property or excavating near a neighbouring building, the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996 shall apply. The granting of planning permission does not override any obligation arising from this or other legislation.
INFORMATIVE: It is suggested that documentary evidence including receipts, invoices and copies of any service contracts in connection with the maintenance of extraction equipment in conjunction with condition 6, is kept, preferably at the premises and is available for inspection by officers of the Local Planning Authority, to facilitate monitoring and compliance of this condition.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that in satisfying condition 21, any construction method statement report should detail the phasing of the sites on the development, the construction activities of each phase, the timetable for that phasing, associated predicted noise levels and details of any noise mitigation methods. This report could detail phase schemes as they progress.
INFORMATIVE: Stone crushing plant may require authorisation, and confirmation of the use or not of a concrete crusher is required by the City Council’s Environmental Health & Waste Strategy department.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that in conjunction with condition 24 It is recommended that the noise level from the plant and noise generation within the building should not raise the existing background level by more than 3dB at the boundary of this premises. It is recommended that an acoustic consultant is commissioned to undertake these works.
INFORMATIVE: Housing Standards, Mandella House, 4 Regent Street, and Building Control The Guildhall, regarding fire precaution works/fire escape etc as the development will include residential use such as bedsits and student bedrooms. Tel No: 01223 457 893.
INFORMATIVE: The Food and Health and Safety Section, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street Cambridge for advice concerning Health & Food Regulations/ requirements, Tel No: 01223 457 900, as the premises may require registration under the Food safety Act 1990 and will need to comply with the standards contained in the relevant Food Hygiene Regulations and Health and Safety Regulations prior to becoming operational.
INFORMATIVE: The Health & Safety Executive, 14 Cardiff Road, Luton, LU1 1PP, Tel No: 01582 444200 concerning health and safety regulation requirements.
INFORMATIVE: Building Control at the Guildhall, Tel No: 01223 457114 as adequate ventilation will need to be provided to all areas.
INFORMATIVE: In relation to the desk top study for possible contamination refer to:
• DoE 1994 Contaminated Land Research Report “Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contaminated land” prepared by Applied Environmental Research Centre Ltd CLR No 2 Volume One (of 2). • Construction Industry Research & Information Association, CIRIN (1995) Special Publication 103 “Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land Volume III – “Site Investigation and Assessment” • British Standards Code of Practice for “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” 1999.
INFORMATIVE: The Developer should contact the Highway Authority, or its Agent, to arrange construction of any works within, or disturbance of, or interference with, the Public Highway, and that all costs associated with such works shall be borne by the developer.
INFORMATIVE: The developer will neither be permitted to drain roof water over the public highway, nor across it in a surface channel, but must make arrangements to install a piped drainage connexion.
INFORMATIVE: No window or door will be allowed to open over a highway, and no foundation or footing for the structure will be allowed under the Public Highway.
INFORMATIVE: The granting of planning permission does not constitute a permission or licence to a developer to carry out any works within, or disturbance of, or interference with, the Public Highway, and that a separate permission must be sought from the Highway Authority for such works.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that in connection with Condition 9 above (Details of Contractors Operations) construction traffic should access the site from the Chesterton Road frontage only.
INFORMATIVE: In respect to condition 36 (light details to 1st and 2nd floor corridors) the applicant is advised that low level lighting would be most appropriate in order to limit nuisance to nearby residents.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to contact Catherine Bishop of Anglia Water on Tel No.01206 289375 regarding on site drainage proposals.