PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 21st September 2011 Application Number

11/0633/REM Agenda Item

Date Received 17th June 2011 Officer Mrs Sarah Dyer

Target Date 16th September 2011 Ward Trumpington Site Station Area Redevelopment Land Between Station

Road And Hills Road - Blocks L1, L2, L3, L4 And K2 (Fosters Mill) Of The CB1 Station Area Masterplan, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

Proposal Approval of Reserved Matters (appearance, layout, scale and landscape) for the blue phase of the CB1 Masterplan (ref:08/0266/OUT), comprising blocks L1, L2, L3, L4 and K2 for 787 sq.m of retail (Classes A1/A3), a 46 sq.m community room (Class D1), and 169 residential units (including 63 affordable units), along with associated access roads, car parking, cycle parking, a substation and landscaping.

Applicant Hill Residential Limited C/O Ms. Anna Dyson Savills (L&P) Ltd. 25 Finsbury Circus London EC2M 7EE

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The application site forms part of a larger area which is the

subject of the CB1 Station Area Redevelopment proposals for which outline planning permission was granted in April 2010.

1.2 The application site includes land between Station Road and

Hills Road including the former Fosters Mill (the Mill). With the exception of the Mill, most of the buildings that were previously accommodated on the site have been demolished in the last few months. Part of the site is currently in use as a contractors compound for the adjacent development site. The route of the Southern Access Road (SAR) which is currently under construction runs through the site separating the Mill from the rest of the application site. The SAR does not form part of the

application and was approve under the reserved matters submission for Phase 1a.

1.3 To the north of the site is land which is has also been cleared

and is now used as a contractor’s compound, Murdoch House, an office block opposite the railway station, and the remains of the Silo building. To the west of the site is the Warren Close development. To the east and south is land which is currently being developed for student accommodation blocks which are to be completed by Spring/Summer 2012.

1.4 The application site is within an area of major change as

allocated by the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 (Policy 9/9 Station Area) and falls within Conservation Area No.1 – Central and the controlled parking zone.

1.5 The Station Buildings are listed grade two. Sleeperz Hotel, the

Mill and Silo, the Ceres statue, 32-38 Station Road and 125-127a Hills Road are Buildings of Local Interest (BLI). There are no trees within the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application relates to a submission of reserved matters for

Blocks L1 to L4 and Block K2 (the Mill) and part of the Local Park following the grant of Outline Planning permission in April 2010. This part of the development is also known as Phase Two and the Blue Phase. When outline planning permission was granted the only detailed matter that was also approved was access, all other matters were ‘reserved’ for determination a later stage. In this case the ‘reserved matters’ were appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. This submission relates to all of these matters.

2.2 Blocks L1 to L4 run North to South between the proposed

Southern Access Road and the Warren Close development. The application site also includes an area of informal open space which is to form part of a larger Local Park together with existing adjacent open space. Block L1 has commercial space on the ground floor that can be used for shop/restaurant/takeaway use with residential accommodation above. Blocks L2 to L4 are entirely residential with the exception of a community room which is proposed on the ground floor of Block L4. The Mill which is Block K2 of the

Masterplan is to be converted into commercial space at ground floor level with 19 residential units on the upper floors.

2.3 Outline planning permission was granted subject to a number of

planning conditions. The most pertinent condition to this submission is condition 3. This condition requires that all reserved matters for each phase must be approved before development can commence.

2.4 There are also a large number of conditions on the outline

planning permission that require the submission of further detailed information in tandem with the reserved matters submission for discharge prior to the commencement of development. The discharge of these planning conditions can be carried out under powers delegated to officers but I have made reference to them throughout my report as background information. The relevant conditions relate to the following:

Condition 5 – Development to be carried out in accordance with Parameter Plans. Condition 8 – Development in accordance with Public Realm and Landscape Stategy. Condition 10 – Development in accordance with Estate Management Strategy Condition 11 – Detailed landscape scheme in accordance with Public Realm and Landscape Stategy Condition 13 – Management and maintenance plan for landscaping. Condition 14 - Affordable Housing details Condition 16 - Code for Sustainable Homes (minimum code 4) Condition 18 - BREEAM (Excellent) Condition 20 – Renewable energy (15%) – installation and operation Condition 23 – Surface Water drainage Condition 25 – Ecological Conservation Management Plan Condition 26 – Disabled parking (5%) Condition 28 – Cycle parking Condition 29 – Foul Water drainage Condition 34 - Noise attenuation scheme/phased attenuation (internal) Condition 42 – On site waste storage Condition 56 - Ventilation method for underground car park. Condition 57 – Car parking ratio/Air Quality impact

2.5 The application is accompanied by the following supporting information, some of which relates to discharge of planning conditions:

1. Plans and Elevations May 2011 2. Design & Access Statement by Hill Residential and

PTEa May 2011. 3. Landscape Proposals by Robert Myers May 2011 4. Estate Management Plan by Bidwells May 2011 5. Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report –

Affordable Housing by Baily Garner May 2011 6. Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report –

Private Accommodation by Baily Garner May 2011 7. Ecohomes 2006 – Pre-assessment Report by Bailey

Garner May 2011 8. Breeam Bespoke Pre-assessment Report for

Community Room by Bailey Garner May 2011 9. Breeam Retail 2007 – Pre-assessment Report by

Bailey Garner May 2011 10. Energy Strategy Report by PJR Building Services

Design Engineers May 2011 11. Foul and Surface Water Strategy by Mott MacDonald

May 2011 12. Ecological Management Plan by RPS May 2011 13. Acoustic Report by Hilson Moran May 2011 14. Ventilation Report by PJR Building Services Design

Engineers May 2011 15. Air Quality Assessment by Mott MacDonald May 2011

2.6 Four applications for Non-material amendments to the

Parameter Plans that were approved under the outline consent have also been submitted. I have produced reports for these which appear elsewhere on the agenda. The Non-material amendments are necessary to allow this submission to be approved in the form in which it has been submitted. The Non-material amendments relate to the location of access ramps serving the basement and the extent of the basement; the location of the community room; building fronts/active frontages; and balconies and framing. These applications need to be determined in advance of the consideration of the reserved matters submission.

2.7 The applicants have also requested discharge of section 106 obligations relating to the submission and approval of the Affordable Housing Scheme for the CB1 development as a whole, the Affordable Housing Delivery Plan for this Phase (Blue Phase) and the Public Art Delivery Plan for this Phase (Blue Phase). The minutes of the Planning Committee in October 2008, which considered the Outline application, require that the Affordable Housing Scheme be approved by the Committee. I have referred to the submission in my report and included a recommendation for its approval in the overall recommendation. The Committee will need to take a vote on both elements of my recommendation. The Affordable Housing Delivery Plan and the Public Art Delivery Plan can be determined by officers under delegated powers but I have referred to its content in my Assessment.

2.8 During the course of the application determination the plans

have been amended in response to comments from the JUDT, the Senior Conservation Officer, the Cycling Officer and the County Highway Engineer. The applicant has also responded to comments and questions raised by consultees.

3.0 SITE HISTORY

Reference Description Outcome

08/0266/OUT CB1 Station Area Redevelopment

A/C

09/0706/CAC Conservation Area Consent for demolition of 127/127a Hills Road

A/C

C/00501/09/CC County Council application for construction of a new bus only access road and cycle route and associated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists

A/C

10/0327/REM Reserved matters submission for Phase 1a

W/D

10/0810/REM Reserved matters submission for Phase 1a

A/C

10/0797/REM Reserved matters submission for Block E

A/C

05/1093/FUL Proposed restoration and conversion of Fosters Mill to residential use (11 2-bed units, 5 3-bed units and 3 4-bed units) with associated parking (Permission expires 07/02/2013)

A/C

4.0 PUBLICITY 4.1 Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes DC Forum: No

A petition with 25 signatures was submitted requesting a Development Control Forum The petition requested a DCF on the basis that 'The proposed brick finish and other cladding is out of character and no sufficient case has been made to justify the dramatic departure in relation to the existing buildings (L1 to L4) and already those proposed nearby buildings already with planning approval. The detailing and colour finish is too contrasting and inappropriate for this development area, which is situated within the Central Conservation Area. The proposed development does not comply with the Cambridge City Council's Local Plan policies 3/7, 3/12 and 4/11.’ The Lead Petitioner subsequently decided not to pursue the DCF on the basis that the concerns of petitioners would be brought before Members at the Planning Committee meeting.

5.0 POLICY

Central Government Advice 5.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005): Paragraphs 7 and 8 state that national policies and regional and local development plans (regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks) provide the framework for planning for sustainable development and for development to be managed effectively. This plan-led system,

and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006): Sets out to

deliver housing which is: of high quality and is well designed; that provides a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price; supports a wide variety of households in all areas; sufficient in quantity taking into account need and demand and which improves choice; sustainable in terms of location and which offers a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, services and infrastructure; efficient and effective in the use of land, including the re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate. The statement promotes housing policies that are based on Strategic Housing Market Assessments that should inform the affordable housing % target, including the size and type of affordable housing required, and the likely profile of household types requiring market housing, including families with children, single persons and couples. The guidance states that LPA’s may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range. 30 dwellings per hectare is set out as an indicative minimum. Paragraph 50 states that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a positive approach to renewable energy and sustainable development.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing has been reissued with the following changes: the definition of previously developed land now excludes private residential gardens to prevent developers putting new houses on the brownfield sites and the specified minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare on new housing developments has been removed. The changes are to reduce overcrowding, retain residential green areas and put planning permission powers back into the hands of local authorities. (June 2010)

5.3 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth (2009): sets out the government’s planning

policies for economic development, which includes development in the B Use Classes (offices, industry and storage), public and community uses and main town centre uses. The policy guidance sets out plan-making policies and development management policies. The plan-making policies relate to using evidence to plan positively, planning for sustainable economic growth, planning for centres, planning for consumer choice and promoting competitive town centres, site selection and land assembly and car parking. The development management policies address the determination of planning applications, supporting evidence for planning applications, a sequential test and impact assessment for applications for town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with the Development Plan and their consideration, car parking and planning conditions.

5.4 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic

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

5.5 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation (2005): Paragraph 1 states that planning

decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.

5.6 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001): This

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

5.7 Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004):

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

5.8 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004): States that ‘any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use’. It highlights the fact that the planning system has a key role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution. Appendix A sets out those matters which may be material in taking decisions on individual planning applications including the environmental benefits of reducing the need for travel and the existence of Air Quality Management Areas.

5.9 Planning Policy Guidance 24 - Planning and Noise (1994): States at paragraph 12, that planning authorities should consider carefully whether new noise-sensitive development would be incompatible with existing activities. At paragraph 13,

a number of mitigation measures are suggested which could be introduced to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise.

5.10 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006): States that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk. It states that development in areas of flood risk should only be permitted when there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk and benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding.

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

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

5.12 Circular 05/2005 - Planning Obligations: Advises that

planning obligations must be relevant to planning, necessary, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind and reasonable in all other respect.

5.13 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 – places a

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

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

5.14 East of England Plan 2008

SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development SS2: Overall Spatial Strategy SS3: Key Centres for Development and Change

H1: Regional Housing Provision 2001to 2021 H2: Affordable Housing

T2: Changing Travel Behaviour T3 Managing Traffic Demand T9: Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport T13 Public Transport Accessibility T14 Parking ENV1: Green Infrastructure ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage ENV6: The Historic Environment ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment ENG1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance WAT 2: Water Infrastructure WAT 4: Flood Risk Management WM6: Waste Management in Development

5.15 Cambridge Local Plan 2006

3/1 Sustainable development 3/3 Setting of the City 3/4 Responding to context 3/7 Creating successful places 3/11 The design of external spaces 3/12 The design of new buildings 3/13 Tall buildings and the skyline 3/15 Shopfronts and signage 4/4 Trees 4/10 Listed Buildings 4/11 Conservation Areas 4/12 Buildings of Local Interest 4/13 Pollution and amenity 4/14 Air Quality Management Areas 4/15 Lighting 5/1 Housing provision 5/5 Meeting housing needs 5/10 Dwelling mix 5/12 New community facilities 6/8 Convenience shopping

6/10 Food and drink outlets. 8/1 Spatial location of development 8/2 Transport impact 8/4 Walking and Cycling accessibility 8/6 Cycle parking 8/8 Land for Public Transport 8/9 Commercial vehicles and servicing 8/10 Off-street car parking 8/16 Renewable energy in major new developments 8/17 Renewable energy 8/18 Water, sewerage and drainage infrastructure 9/1 Further policy guidance for the Development of Areas of Major Change

9/9 Station Area Planning Obligation Related Policies

3/7 Creating successful places

3/8 Open space and recreation provision through new development

5/14 Provision of community facilities through new development 8/3 Mitigating measures 8/5 Pedestrian and cycle network 8/7 Public transport accessibility 9/9 Station Area

10/1 Infrastructure improvements 5.16 Supplementary Planning Documents

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

Recommended design considerations are climate change adaptation, water, materials and construction waste and historic environment.

Cambridge City Council (January 2008) - Affordable

Housing: Gives advice on what is involved in providing affordable housing in Cambridge. Its objectives are to facilitate the delivery of affordable housing to meet housing needs and to assist the creation and maintenance of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

Cambridge City Council (January 2010) - Public Art: This SPD aims to guide the City Council in creating and providing public art in Cambridge by setting out clear objectives on public art, a clarification of policies, and the means of implementation. It covers public art delivered through the planning process, principally Section 106 Agreements (S106), the commissioning of public art using the S106 Public Art Initiative, and outlines public art policy guidance.

5.17 Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance Draft National Planning Policy Framework (July 2011)

The National Planning Policy Framework (Draft NPPF) sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England. These policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations.

The Draft NPPF includes a set of core land use planning principles that should underpin both plan making and development management (précised form):

1. planning should be genuinely plan-led

2. planning should proactively drive and support the development and the default answer to development proposals should be “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in the Draft NPPF

3. planning decisions should take into account local circumstances and market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business community

4. planning decisions for future use of land should take account of its environmental quality or potential quality regardless of its previous or existing use

5. planning decisions should seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets and allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value

6. mixed use developments that create more vibrant places, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land should be promoted

7. the reuse of existing resources, such as through the

conversion of existing buildings, and the use of renewable resources should be encouraged

8. planning decisions should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable

9. planning decisions should take account of and support local strategies to improve health and wellbeing for all

10. planning decisions should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

The Draft NPPF states that the primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development.

Letter from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (27 May 2010) The coalition government is committed to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Decisions on housing supply (including the provision of travellers sites) will rest with

Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans.

Letter from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (27 May 2010) The coalition government is committed to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Decisions on housing supply (including the provision of travellers sites) will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans. Written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011)

Includes the following statement:

When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant and consistent with their statutory obligations they should therefore: (i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession; (ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing; (iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity); (iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date;

(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions. City Wide Guidance The Cambridge Shopfront Design Guide (1997) – Guidance on new shopfronts. Biodiversity Checklist for Land Use Planners in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (March 2001) - This document aims to aid strategic and development control planners when considering biodiversity in both policy development and dealing with planning proposals. Cambridge Walking and Cycling Strategy (2002) – A walking and cycling strategy for Cambridge. Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth (2008) – Sets out the core principles of the level of quality to be expected in new developments in the Cambridge Sub-Region

Cambridgeshire Design Guide For Streets and Public Realm (2007): The purpose of the Design Guide is to set out the key principles and aspirations that should underpin the detailed discussions about the design of streets and public spaces that will be taking place on a site-by-site basis.

Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments (2010) – Gives guidance on the nature and layout of cycle parking, and other security measures, to be provided as a consequence of new residential development.

Air Quality in Cambridge – Developers Guide (2008) - Provides information on the way in which air quality and air pollution issues will be dealt with through the development control system in Cambridge City. It compliments the

Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document.

Buildings of Local Interest (2005) – A schedule of buildings of local interest and associated guidance.

Station Area Development Framework (2004) – Sets out a vision and Planning Framework for the development of a high density mixed use area including new transport interchange and includes the Station Area Conservation Appraisal. Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - in November 2010 the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was adopted by the City Council as a material consideration in planning decisions. The SFRA is primarily a tool for planning authorities to identify and evaluate the extent and nature of flood risk in their area and its implications for land use planning.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) – Study assessing the risk of flooding in Cambridge. Cambridge and Milton Surface Water Management Plan (2011) – A SWMP outlines the preferred long term strategy for the management of surface water. Alongside the SFRA they are the starting point for local flood risk management. Cambridge City Council (2006) - Open Space and Recreation Strategy: Gives guidance on the provision of open space and recreation facilities through development.

Cambridge City Council Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation (2010) Sets out how all residential developments should make provision for public open space, if not on site then by commuted payments. It incorporates elements from the Planning Obligations Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2010) and the Open Space and Recreation Strategy (2006).

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Cambridgeshire County Council (Engineering)

6.1 Further information is required in relation to car parking space dimensions, cycle parking, maximum height of vehicle access to car park and reduced height spaces, allocation of car and cycle parking between blocks, ratio of allocation between private and affordable housing which must be equitable, provision for visitor parking, access to cycle parking via ramp, control method for car access ramp and visibility splays.

Subject to the receipt of further information as requested, no

significant impact on the highway is anticipated and conditions are recommended in relation to erection of gates to access ramps, retention of manoeuvring areas and access clear of obstructions and submission and approval of a traffic management plan during works. Informatives are requested in relation to works to the public highway and public utilities.

New residents will not qualify for residents parking permits or

visitor permits and an informative is requested to bring this to the attention of the applicants. Response in relation to further information submitted on 18 August 2011: The turning head is acceptable. Parking spaces and aisle dimensions are acceptable. MPVs will be able to access the car park but not vehicles of transit van size. There is still no allocation for visitor parking. A slight alteration is required to the visibility splay. Cambridgeshire County Council (Sustainable Communities)

6.2 Cycling Officer - The amount of cycle parking accords with guidance. High capacity stands are not ideal but are acceptable providing they are of a hi-lo design and facilitate locking of the frame. The access ramp should be of as shallow a gradient as possible and with a ramp at both sides of the stair. Ecology Officer – satisfied with Ecological Management Statement and no further comments.

Cambridge City Council Head of Environmental Services

6.3 Condition 34 - Noise attenuation scheme/phased attenuation

(internal) – recommends partial discharge of this condition to allow further details of ventilation and glazing to be submitted at a later stage. Condition 42 – On site waste storage – The details and the design are insufficient to discharge the condition and insufficient facilities are provided. Condition 56 - Ventilation method for underground car park – This condition can be discharged. Condition 57 – Car parking ratio/Air Quality impact – further work is needed on this issue.

Construction Disturbance and Disturbance from Non-Residential Uses – these matters can be adequately controlled via the discharge of existing conditions on the outline planning permission. Informatives are recommended. The noise on external balconies on Block L4 will exceed the levels required by condition 33 of the outline planning permission. (There has been no request to discharge this condition).

Cambridge City Council Historic Environment Manager (Senior Conservation Officer)

6.4 Foster’s Mill

The history and background of this Building of Local Interest (BLI) is set out in detail in the Design and Access Statement. The change of use to residential/commercial is supported. The alterations to the roof are welcome but the choice of material (profile sheet metal) needs further consideration. Care will be needed in relation to the choice of external finish and the replacement windows. The reuse of the internal case iron columns is supported but the detail of this is not shown on the plans.

Blocks L1, L2, L3 and L4

The concept of a ‘family’ of buildings is supported. Family character should come from the architecture and there should

not be a contrast in materials in comparison with the wider site. Corners of buildings need to relate to entrances, service functions etc..

The retail/commercial section makes sense but the building must be designed to meet the ground in a real way without glazing cutting the building away from appearing solidly planted on the ground. Further work is needed on shopfronts and signage. Further work is needed on the placement and appearance of accesses to cycle parking and bin stores which are too prominent at present and the entrances generally which do not establish a face to face relationship with the building on the opposite side of the Southern Access Road. The balconies and their materials are supported in giving the separate facades their own identities. The top, middle and bottom of the buildings needs to be emphasised and this could be achieved by altering the brickwork detailing. Overall the points at issue are mainly of detailed design or materials use and choice except for the location of the entrances and relationship of service areas. Conditions are recommended in relation to the following:

� Low pitched roof details

� Flues, pipes and trunking

� Sills, lintels etc.

� Metalwork

� Metal and other mesh

� Ancillary plant and equipment associated with renewable energy systems

� Masonry coatings

� Joinery

� Doors and door surrounds

� Historic iron columns

� Shopfronts and signage

Cambridge City Council/South Cambridgeshire DC Joint Urban Design Team

6.5 Foster’s Mill

In Urban Design terms the proposed commercial/residential use is acceptable. The sensitive conversion and restoration are supported and considered an improvement on the extant permitted scheme. Whilst it would be preferable to expose the brickwork, the reason why this cannot be done is accepted. The final colour treatment should be the subject of a planning condition.

Relationship between Block L1 and Foster’s Mill

The distance between the Mill and Block L1 ranges between 12 m and 13 m. There are no set privacy distances but the rule of thumb is that 20 m is normally acceptable. The reduced separation distance is considered appropriate here given the urban context and the way in which balconies and secondary windows have been placed.

Blocks L1, L2, L3 and L4

Overall concept – the principle of a family group of buildings has been established by the Parameter Plans and the development of a series of buildings with a consistent materials palette and similarity of detailing is entirely appropriate.

Elevations – overall the design is restrained and ordered, enlivened by balconies.

Brick colour and materials – given that the L blocks are a family and form pavilions, the use of a brick to differentiate these buildings against the buff brick of Block M1/M2 is supported. There are precedents for other reddish/brown bricks on large scale buildings in the Historic Core.

Set backs, corners and balconies

The chamfered corners and screening at roof level will provide an interesting shadow and reduce the bulk of the corner. The proposals for Block L1 are supported in terms of the extension of the frame of the building. This will serve as a change of

emphasis to this block given its relationship to development fronting Station Road and the Station Square.

Entrances to L1, L2, L3 and L4 – the positioning of entrances reduces the ‘legibility’ of the building for visitors approaching from the south and reduces interaction and activity at ground floor level on the street. However the entrances will help to activate the pocket parks and the entrances to Block M1/M2 will provide activity. The principle of moving the entrances is supported. The detail of the entrances does need further work to enhance its prominence.

Relationship between Blocks L1, L2, L3 and L4 and Block M1/M2

The separation distance is about 11 m. Again the view is that given the urban context and the design of balconies and secondary windows this is an acceptable arrangement.

Commercial Use Conditions are needed to address shopfront design. Community Room

The location is acceptable in principle but further work is needed in terms of the design, access and prominence of the space. Conditions will be needed to control signage.

Conclusion

Generally supportive but further work needed in relation to design of entrances, access within the building, signage and the community room.

Cambridge City Council Aboriculture Team 6.6 No comments received. Cambridge City Council Landscape Team 6.7 Landscape - Generally supportive of the proposals subject to

resolution of the appearance of the vents serving the

underground attenuation tank in the Local Park and use of Buff coloured breedon gravel in lieu of CEDEC self binding gravel.

Subject to the above comments, Conditions 3, 8, 10, 11 & 13 can be discharged.

Nature Conservation - The Ecological Management Plan is broadly in accordance with the objectives of the Ecological Conservation Management Plan but is unambitious. The number of bird boxes and areas of native planting are low and poorly linked but the main concern is lack of opportunity for use of rooftops to improve bio-diversity. There are no obvious links to the sustainable drainage system and lack of water could limit colonisation by some species. There is a missed opportunity for siting kestrel and swift boxes on Foster’s Mill.

Following receipt of further information dated July 2011 the Nature Conservation Officer commented as follows:

The response is in accordance with the site wide Ecological Conservation Management Plan.

Cambridge City Council Access Officer 6.8 No comments received. Cambridge City Council Walking and Cycling Officer 6.9 Cycle access to the ramped steps to the basement cycle

parking is problematic. Cyclists coming from Station Rd & the east will cut across beside the car ramp where there will be a pinch point between the ramp and tables and chairs. This is likely to cause conflict with the café users and pedestrians. Access for cyclists from the west will be via the roadway and then between blocks L1 & L2. Pathways through this section will be well-used by pedestrians heading to the Park as well as residents of these blocks and are not wide enough to cater for both modes.

An alternative solution would be to provide lifts to the basement parking for cyclists. A lift at each end of the basement would also mean those using the L4 allocated cycle parking would not have to cycle back on themselves – the current arrangement requires them to cycle the length of the basement car park.

The steps appear to be to a gradient of 1:3 which is quite steep, especially given the need to push a bicycle up or down 3 flights of steps. Generally it is recommended that wheeling ramps should not be greater than 1:4 unless it is retro-fit. There will certainly be residents with bicycles who will not be able to use the ramped steps such as those with trailers, those carrying children on child seats and those who are less physically able. At a minimum the racks proposed at ground level associated with each block should be allocated to such users. Doors to this cycle parking should be a minimum of 1000mm in width.

The platform areas between each flight of steps should be a minimum of 1800mm in length to allow people to rest with their bicycles. Given the number of spaces proposed in the basement the width of the ramp must also be able to accommodate two people with bicycles passing each other and so a minimum of 2200mm is needed. The handrail will cause difficulties for cyclists wheeling their bicycles and, as these are steps for those wheeling bicycles only, should be removed. The door at the bottom of the steps should open automatically (with the use of a swipe card or similar.)

More details are needed regarding how the steps open onto the pedestrian area at ground level. This arrangement must ensure that it is both safe and not a potential area for anti-social behaviour – as is the problem at the pedestrian entrance to the Grand Arcade.

The high capacity stands proposed are not acceptable. The City Council Cycle Parking Standards state that ‘high capacity racks are only acceptable if a support post is provided. In addition, the space provided is inadequate such that users would not be able to manoeuvre their bicycles on and off the proposed racks given the aisle width proposed. As stated in the Cycle Parking Standards ‘The cycle parking should be easily accessible and convenient to use.‘ This is clearly not the case in relation to the K2 building where there is no direct access from the cycle parking to the building. Our guide recommends that it be sited within 20m of the relevant entrance. Cycle parking is at such a premium in the station area that it is essential that residential parking is in a secure, easily

accessible location so that residents are not tempted to use the visitor parking.

Within the basement, cycle parking for each block should be located together and near the stairs/lifts to the relevant block. Some changes to the proposed allocation are needed to accommodate this.

Access to the mainly L1 cycle parking is too narrow and could easily be blocked by cars parked badly. Access to the L3 cycle parking could also be blocked by a parked car. The proposed layout is, therefore, not acceptable.

Further comments in response to additional information submitted on 15 August 2011:

� Concerns regarding access via steps/ramp only retained.

� Details of allocation of ground floor cycle parking spaces still required.

� Removal of hand rail welcomed.

� Further alteration to landing on stairs is required.

� A more acceptable solution would be the provision of a lift as an alternative to steps/ramped access.

� Issue of the way in which the steps open out onto the public space not addressed.

� Concerns regarding access to the ramp/steps retained. A dedicated cycle path off the SAR is recommended.

� The high capacity racks shown are an improvement but still not ideal given range of users needs. Space between racks needs to be 400 mm centre to centre (minimum).

� Cycle parking for Block K2 is not convenient, particularly in relation to the parking for staff. It is recommended that additional on street parking for staff is provided.

� L2 parking is shown next to the L3 lift which is not convenient and there is no statement about how spaces will be allocated.

� Access to cycle parking could be compromised by car parking is some cases.

Cambridge City Council CCTV Team 6.10 No comments received.

Cambridge City Council Senior Sustainability Officer (Design and Construction)

6.11 The overall approach being taken is supported, particularly the

use of district heating and the level of carbon reduction that this delivers however clarification is needed in relation to a number of detailed issues. In particular, clarification is sought on the following areas:

� The number of Code credits that will be achieved in relation to mandatory category SUR1 (surface water drainage);

� Whether the SAP (standard assessment procedure) worksheets have been used as the basis for assumptions made in relation to category ENE1;

� Whether any of the market units are being developed to Lifetime Homes standards in order to meet the requirements of Local Plan Policy 5/9, and whether this will be sufficient to achieve any Code credits for category HEA4;

� Whether consideration was given to connecting the commercial element to the communal heating system coupled with the use of absorption chillers;

� The figures used to calculate the carbon reduction achieved for the commercial element of the scheme through the use of Air Source Heat Pumps. Information should include the baseline emissions for the commercial floorspace minus any energy efficiency measures and the carbon savings (in Kg/CO2/annum) brought about by the air source heat pumps.

� Whether the Phase 2 building works can still be determined under the Part L 2006 Regulatory Framework as opposed to the new 2010 Part L Framework.

Further comments in response to additional information submitted on 22 August 2011:

Satisfied with the additional material provided and supports application. With regard to the use of the EcoHomes Standard for the Mill and discharge of condition 16, a variation of condition is the recommended route to resolve the fact that the assessment has been carried out under the EcoHomes standard and not the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Cambridge City Council Sustainable Drainage Officer 6.12 Overall the detailed surface water and detailed foul water

strategies are lacking in detail. Further information is required.

Response in relation to further information submitted on 15 July 2011:

Further detailed information required including in relation to management and maintenance and detailed design.

Response in relation to further information submitted on 18 August 2011:

Full details of the drainage scheme can be secured by planning condition.

Cambridge City Council Housing Enabling Officer 6.13 Response to Affordable Housing Provision in Blue Phase

Percentage of Affordable Housing - Eligible blocks in the Blue Phase provide 40% of affordable housing and 3 additional units are provided in lieu of on-site provision within Block K2. This accords with the s106 and the Affordable Housing SPD. Tenure - The proposed tenure accords with the s106 and the Affordable Housing SPD. Location of Affordable Housing - The affordable housing is located within the four residential blocks that overlook the green space and specifically within Blocks L3 and L4 which have west elevations directly into this area including a childrens play area. This is a prominent location which is supported, as is the tenure blind design.

Housing Mix - The affordable housing mix is 11 one-bed flats (18%), 50 two-bed flats (79%) and 2 three-bed flats (3%). Five of the two bed flats are large units for wheelchair users. This breakdown does not meet the conclusions on Household Mix in Appendix 2 of the Affordable Housing SPD but the balance between one and two bed units is significantly towards the two bed units which does meet the principle of the SPD. The SPD suggests that 50% (but no less than 20%) should be 3 bed or larger. The submission provides for 3% only. However this scheme has been under discussion for several years and in 2008 negotiations were centred on increasing the proportion of two bed units. The indicative mix that was approved in October 2008 was 30% one bed and 70% two bed. This was considered to be a satisfactory mix. The current proposal now includes a small number three bed units across all tenures, which amount to eight when K2 is included but only four in the L-Blocks, of which two are affordable units. The provision of three bed affordable units therefore mirrors the private provision. Provision for Wheelchair and Supported Units – the Developing Affordable Housing Policy Guide 2008 requires 2% of all new affordable housing schemes to be fully wheelchair accessible (3 units) and 8% to meet specialist housing needs (10 units). There is an identified need for housing to for people with low level mental health issues. This type of housing is provided in clusters of 6-8 units. In this case officers have agreed a cluster of 6 units and two additional fully accessible units i.e. 5 units fully wheelchair accessible and 6 special needs units. The affordable housing will meet standards set by the HCA in Design and Quality Standards April 2007 will achieve Lifetime Homes Standards and will achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. This accords with the s106.

Response in relation to further information submitted on 1 September 2011: I will provide further comments on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting. I have received informal comments from the Housing Enabling Officer to confirm that she supports the Affordable Housing Scheme and Affordable Housing Delivery Plan.

Cambridge City Council Public Art Officer 6.14 The Public Art Delivery Plan (PADP) provides information on

the delivery of the approved CB1 Public Art Strategy (PAS).

The cb1 PAS contains the following objectives and all elements of the Blue Phase PADP should respond to these objectives: • Investigate ‘new models of artistic practice within the public realm’ and consider ‘the way in which public art is generated’ • Employ a ‘strategic approach to commissioning, measured by the aggregate effect of a number of interventions rather than a single signature work’ • Commission a programme of projects that make a meaningful contribution to the creation of a high quality public realm, and builds cultural identity and local distinctiveness • Develop and present a programme of engagement that achieves maximum public benefit • Establish a programme that advocates good and effective practice and represents value for money

The cb1 PAS commits to deliver a public art programme, as follows: The public art programme will deliver the following: • A minimum of eight significant commissions as a direct result of the development • A research and development programme linked to these commissions, involving the academic and student community where appropriate • A public and community programme linked to all aspects of the project • An ongoing temporary projects programme that celebrates the site, engages local people, and encourages debate, culminating in a major temporary project marking the completion of the scheme • A model and context for projects taking place either on site or in its vicinity

The cb1 PAS also contains three key themes, which the public art programme should adhere to.

� Legibility

• New Approaches • Laboratory for Public Art Practice

The PADP includes a Permanent Commission, a Temporary Commission and Research and Development, a Public Programme and the relocation of the Ceres sculpture.

The Permanent Commission which is a piece by the artist Jem Finer accords with the PAS but further details are needed and the artworks the subject of more public involvement. The Temporary Commission relates to the celebrations associated with the Olympics. This is not derived from the PAS and is not supported. More information is needed in relation to the Research and Development element, the Public Programme and the relocation of Ceres.

Response in relation to further information submitted on 7 September 2011:

I will provide further comments on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting.

Environment Agency

6.15 Initial comments made in relation to Condition 23 (Surface

Water Drainage), Condition 29 (Foul Water Drainage) and Condition 42 (On-site storage of waste) dealt with by clarification from applicant’s consultants. No further comments.

Anglian Water 6.16 No comments received.

Cambridge Water 6.17 No comments received.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer)

6.18 No objections, detailed comments in respect of lack of reference to the creation of a safe and accessible environment in the D & A Statement, high level of cycle related crime, potential for anti-social behaviour impacts (skateboarding and

Parkor), safe access to basement, CCTV and the Secured by Design Scheme. (As requested a copy of the comments has been sent to the applicants.)

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service 6.19 Adequate provision should be made for fire hydrants via

planning condition. Access and facilities for the Fire Service should be provided in accordance with Building Regulations.

Natural England 6.20 Satisfied with details set out in the Ecological Conservation

Management Plan regarding mitigation, enhancement and monitoring for birds, bats and mosses. The Plan is consistent with the Ecological Management Plan (agreed for CB1 as a whole) and meets the requirements of Condition 25.

English Heritage 6.21 Welcome the current proposals for the Mill which represent an

improvement over the approved scheme. It is accepted that the bricks on the Mill cannot be satisfactorily stripped of paint and therefore building should be painted to complement the colour of Cambridge stock bricks and the texture of the brick should remain visible.

The decision to relocate the access ramp serving the basement car park to Blocks L1 to L4 is welcomed and the design strategy for these blocks is supported. It is considered that a family of buildings linked by common themes of detail and materials, but not necessarily identical is appropriate. In that respect the west elevations may benefit from some subtle variations.

The landscape scheme is welcomed and a well executed landscape environment will make a significant contribution to the final outcome of the development.

Design and Conservation Panel (Meetings of 29 September 2010, 19 January 2011, 16 February 2011 and 11 May 2011) (Pre-application)

6.22 See Appendix A

Design and Conservation Panel (Meetings of 3 August 2011)

6.23 The Panel welcomed the approach to handling the elevations

and additional research on brickwork. They felt the brick colour should complement the lighter shades elsewhere. However it is considered that a contrast would be too sharp and too dark a colour may overwhelm the public space. Verdict Green (5) with one abstention.

Disability Consultative Panel (Meeting of 4 May 2011) (Pre-application)

6.24 The Panel’s conclusion was that this is a good design, with a pleasant use of green spaces that would be essential within a development of this scale. Detailed comments were made in relation to the following:

� Disabled apartments/maisonettes (bathrooms). Although shown as having baths, these would need to be adapted for showers. The bathroom doors also need to open outwards.

� Lifts. These will need a secondary power supply. BS999 specifies a fire ingress lift/secondary power.

� Pavilion buildings. Consideration will need to be given to toilet facilities within the café/commercial space, with wheelchair access from the basement parking to the public and commercial areas (L1).

� Consideration will also need to be given to which floors are served by the lifts coming from the car park. If a lift could serve both the car park and commercial levels, then a person could park in the basement and use two lifts to visit anyone in former mill building.

� L4 community room. This would be made available for the whole development and would therefore need to be fitted with induction loops etc.

� Ramp into the pocket parks. At gradient 1:14 this is Part M compliant. However for a ramp of this length, the Panel would welcome either more waiting areas or the design team to aim towards the more desirable 1:20 if possible. Visibility strips and handrails should be incorporated into the design, (although the Panel does accept that the guidance is ambiguous on handrails in external spaces).

� Trees. The Panel noted that the choice of deciduous trees on the development, but that these trees had not been selected to act as a screen.

� Benches. The Panel noted that there was no formal seating in the Southern Residential Park but that planters would be selected to be at seat height. Given the site’s close proximity to the train station, all benches would need to be designed to discourage rough sleeping.

6.25 The above responses are a summary of the comments that

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

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

representations: 3 Ascham Road

29 Lyndewode Road 10 Suez Road

7.2 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Query regarding relationship of this proposal and those for Blocks M1, M2, M3 and M4 and question where funding is coming from now that Ashwell have withdrawn. The future of the Mill as a listed building is also raised. The proposed design does not live up to the excellent examples set out in the Design and Access Statement and result in an uninspiring wall to the park. Four suggestions are made:

� That the fenestration should follow the variation in floor plans

� Omission of projecting balconies and replace with projecting triangular or square balconies.

� Slight variation in choice of brick colour and bringing the centre block forward by 2 metres

� Tree planting closer to the facades of buildings to reduce their dominant impact on landscaped areas

More detail would be expected to be included with a Reserved Matters submission regarding Ecology.

7.3 A representation has been received on behalf of

Glisson/Tenison Area Residents Association. The Residents Association are concerned that they have not seen the Traffic Management Plan approved in December 2010. On that basis they have concerns about the additional traffic generated by residents, increased cycle traffic by students and residents, vehicles accessing the proposed multi-storey car park via Tenison Road, the effects of traffic congestion by taxis and buses and the increased traffic generated by Microsoft and other buildings close to the Station Road/Tenison Road junction. Reassurance is sought on these points.

7.4 A representation has been received from Cambridge Past,

Present and Future. They object to the application for the following reasons:

Blocks L1 to L4 Improved detailing is needed to fenestration Northeast facing balconies are a poor design feature as they

will not be used. The case is not sound for the use of a contrasting brick colour

which will dominate the open space and insufficient effort has been made by officers to justify such a significant change in the Conservation Area.

The proposed community room is of insufficient size for the

community it is to serve and of a poor quality which does not reflect the applicants aspirations for a ‘world class city.

Overall community provision across CB1 is poor with small

green space, no formal sports facilities, access to underground parking compromising green space, the Station Square a ‘glorified taxi rank’ and a simple bus station.

The notion that the siting of the community room has the full agreement of officers and decision makers is rejected. The siting will not achieve long term maintenance and is too ‘tucked away’. The community room should be located in Block L1 as this would allow partnership working with nearby café/restaurants to accommodate larger community events and activities.

Foster’s Mill (Block K2) The use of ‘crinkly tin’ roofing is wholly inappropriate. Further

justification is needed for the significant changes to the building. 7.5 A representation has been received from SUSTRANS. They

object to the application for the following reasons: High density cycle parking stands are not acceptable. They do

not facilitate safe locking of the cycle and are located too close together.

There is insufficient space to move to and from cycle spaces. The ramp/steps access is not convenient and the car access

ramp too steep to be used as an alternative. The area of the access stairs is likely to suffer from poor air

quality as it is close to the car ramp. Two lifts should be provided for cyclists. There is no direct access from the Mill to the cycle and car

parking area and access would only be provided via the ramp/steps cycle access. This would be likely to result in additional on street parking.

There is no parking shown for shops in the Mill or Block L1. An alternative solution may be to extend the basement and

provide a shallow ride up or push up ramp for cyclists. 7.6 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. Housing Mix and Affordable Housing 3. Context of site, design and external spaces 4. Impact on Heritage Assets 5. Community Facilities 6. Public Art 7. Sustainable Development, Renewable energy and

BREEAM 8. Disabled access 9. Residential amenity 10. Refuse arrangements 11. Highway safety 12. Car and cycle parking 13. Third party representations 14. Outstanding issues raised by internal and external

consultees. 15. Planning Obligation Strategy

Principle of Development

8.2 The principle of development has been established by the

Outline planning consent and associated parameter plans. Parameter plans 3 to 9 address the following matters:

� PP3 Building Layout (+ maximum balcony/canopy overhang 1.5m)

� PP4 Building and Ground Conditions (building height (maximum height of occupied floorspace + maximum plant/lift motor rooms 2 m), building height above proposed ground level, proposed ground level (+/- 0.5m tolerance), existing ground level and proposed ground floor setback)

� PP5 Access and Circulation

� PP6 Public Realm and Open Space

� PP7 Residential and Non-Residential Parking.

� PP8 Proposed Uses – Ground Floor

� PP9 Proposed Uses – Typical Upper Levels 8.3 There are four reports elsewhere on the Agenda which deal

with applications for Non-Material Amendments to the parameter plans to accommodate changes to Blocks L1 to L4. This report assumes that the recommendation on those reports is accepted.

8.4 The parameter plans principally control the size and mass of the

development and the disposition of land uses. I will deal with issues of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping in the following section on Context of the site, design and external spaces. With regard to use, Parameter Plans 8 and 9 set out the following arrangement:

BLOCK GROUND FLOOR UPPER FLOORS

L1 Retail (A1, A3, A4 or A5 use)

Residential

Residential

L2 Residential Residential

L3 Residential Residential

L4 Residential* Residential

K2 (the Mill) Retail (A1, A3, A4 or A5 use)

Residential

Residential

Note: A Non-material amendment has been sought to allow a community room to be accommodated in the ground floor of Block L4.

8.5 A total of 169 residential units are proposed in the five blocks of which 63 units are to be affordable units. 787 sq metres of commercial space is proposed together with the community room with extends to 46 sq metres. Car and cycle parking is provided in basement which extends under Blocks L1 to L4 and which is also the subject of an application for a Non-material amendment. The mix of uses accords with the parameter plan disposition of uses.

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

and in accordance with policies 3/1, 5/1, 6/8, 6/10 and 9/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Housing Mix and Affordable Housing 8.7 In assessing the housing mix and proportion of affordable

housing that has been brought forward as part of the reserved matters submission it is important to consider what was accepted at the outline planning stage.

Housing Mix 8.8 The following table is derived from the Committee Report for the

Outline Planning Application (October 2008): Housing mix (unit size and tenure) CB1 development

Unit Size

Units Studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed

Total Total (%)

Affordable 0 40 93 0 133 40

Private 30 79 69 20 198 60

Total 30 119 162 20 331

% Affordable

0 30% 70% 0

% Private 15% 40% 35% 10%

Total (%) 9% 36% 49% 6%

8.9 169 dwellings are proposed in this phase of the development leaving a balance of up to 162 to be delivered in later phases of the CB1 development. 40% of new housing is to be affordable housing across the scheme as a whole (this excludes the residential conversion of the Mill). This is controlled via the s106 Agreement which I deal with in more detail below in the sub-section on Affordable Housing.

8.10 The following table sets out the housing mix (unit size and

tenure) for the reserved matters submission and compares it with the percentages for housing mix set out in the outline planning approval.

Housing mix (unit size and tenure) Phase 2 (Blue Phase) Reserved Matters

Unit Size

Units Studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed

Total Total (%)

Affordable 0 11 50 2 63 37

Private 10 40 50 6 106 63

Total 10 51 100 8 169

% Affordable

0 17% 80% 3%

% Private 9% 38% 47% 6%

Total (%) 6% 30% 59% 5%

8.11 A comparison of the above tables reveals that the housing mix

that has been brought forward in this phase is highly reflective of the housing mix envisaged at the outline stage. The key differences are the higher proportion of two bed units and the introduction of a limited number of three bed affordable units. At the outline stage both the policy officer and the housing officer were supportive of the principle of bringing forward predominately two bed units.

Affordable Housing 8.12 The s106 Agreement that is attached to the outline planning

permission secures 40% of affordable housing across the new build units. The Mill is excluded from this calculation because at the time of completion of the s106 it benefited from an extant consent for conversion to 19 residential units. Six affordable housing units are required in association with the residential conversion of the Mill (just over 30% of the total number of converted units). It was never intended for these units to be located in the Mill conversion but they are required to be located elsewhere in the CB1 development. This explains why the proportion of affordable housing in this phase is less than 40%.

8.13 The affordable housing provision is made up of 40% of the new

build units (60 affordable units out of a total 150 units) and 3 units being associated with the Mill conversion. When the second phase of residential development is brought forward it will have to provide 40% affordable housing plus the remaining 3 units associated with the Mill conversion. Based on the balance of 162 units, the second phase should deliver 68 affordable units in total. If this figure is added to the 63 units delivered by this phase a total of 131 affordable units (39.5%) should be delivered by the CB1 development as a whole.

8.14 The number of affordable housing units accords with the

requirements of the s106 Agreement in respect of this phase. The s106 Agreement also requires the submission and approval of an Affordable Housing Scheme prior to the commencement of residential development on either the Blue or Pink Phases and the submission and approval of an Affordable Housing Delivery Scheme for the Blue Phase in advance of commencement on the Blue Phase. Both of these documents have been submitted alongside the Reserved Matters submission. The Affordable Housing Scheme is required to be approved by the Committee as officers do not have delegated powers to deal with it.

8.15 The Affordable Housing Scheme (AHS) needs to set out the

details of the Affordable Housing as follows:

� The total number of dwellings in the development.

� The approximate total number of dwellings in each phase

� The approximate split between Open Market Dwellings and Affordable Units in each phase

� The proposed tenure of each affordable unit. 8.16 The Affordable Housing Delivery Scheme (AHDS) needs to

accord with the Affordable Housing SPD and include the following:

� The total number of dwellings in the Phase

� The split between Open Market Dwellings and Affordable Units in the Phase

� The tenure of each Affordable Unit in that Phase

� The size of and number of bedrooms in each Affordable Unit in the Phase

� The location of each Affordable Unit in the Phase

� Any proposed mortgage, rent, service charges or ground rent

� The name of the approved body that is to manage the Affordable Housing.

8.17 The AHS and AHDS submissions include information to

address the above requirements. In relation to the numbers of dwellings of different types this is as set out in the preceding paragraphs. The Housing Enabling Officer is happy with the proposals on tenure and I will provide further information on this on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting.

8.18 With regard to the issue of location of affordable housing the applicants have addressed the issue of pepper-potting and clustering. They argue that it is appropriate for the affordable units to be located in two of the four residential blocks and that any further distribution would not bring any advantages but would be disadvantageous in terms of management and increased costs of running the accommodation through ground rents and service charges. This position is accepted by the Housing Enabling officer and I concur with it.

Context of site, design and external spaces

8.19 The reserved matters submission relates to the appearance,

landscaping, layout and scale of the development, therefore design considerations are key to the determination of the application. The parameter plans have set a threshold on

matters such as the footprint and height of the blocks as they come forward in their detailed form and the approvals of the parameter plans were predicated on the assumption that buildings of such height and mass would be acceptable in the context of the site. It is therefore essential that the buildings that have been brought forward accord with parameter plans.

8.20 The building footprints of Blocks L1 to L4 and K2 accord with

the parameter plans. A comparison can be made between the building heights as defined by the parameter plans and the reserved matters submission as follows:

Block

Parameter Plan height (occupied floorspace)

Parameter Plan top floor set back

RM height (occupied floorspace)

RM height to parapet

RM top floor set back

L1* 22.5 m 1.5 m 22.5m n/a n/a

L2 18 m 1.5 m 18m 16m 1.5m

L3 18 m 1.5 m 18m 16m 1.5m

L4 18 m 1.5 m 18m 16m 1.5m

K2 31.2/18.8m

n/a

*Note Block L1 is the subject of an application for a Non-material amendment to allow a frame to be provided above parapet level. The top floor is set back a minimum of 1.5 m behind this frame.

8.21 Taking into account the allowances and tolerances set down by

Parameter Plan 4, the proposed development accords with the Parameter Plan height limits.

8.22 The overall layout and scale of the development are controlled

by the restrictions imposed by the parameter plans and I have concluded that the scheme accords with the maximum parameters. However consideration also needs to be given as to the how the built forms sit within those parameters and the

appearance of the development. Only by doing this can the detailed impact of the development be properly addressed.

The Mill – appearance and scale of development 8.23 Full planning permission was granted for the conversion of the

Mill to 19 residential units in February 2008 this permission remains extant until February 2013. Although the same number of units is proposed in the current scheme there are some significant differences. The previous scheme did not include any commercial space, involved the construction of two glazed stair towers on the rear elevation and proposed ground level car parking.

8.24 The current scheme takes a fresh approach to the conversion of

the building. The shell of the building is to be retained and new windows and doors inserted into existing reinstated openings. At roof level extensive works will be carried out to return the appearance of the roof to be more in keeping with the original profile which has been spoilt by later additions. A study has been carried out to explore the potential for removing the paint from the existing brickwork. This has concluded that the underlying brickwork has been heavily patched and altered by later additions and therefore it has been decided to repaint the building.

8.25 The Mill is a Building of Local Interest which means that in order to address policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 consideration needs to be given to the interior as well as the exterior of the building. The key internal feature is the iron columns and beams. It is not possible to retain them and expose them inside the flats due to fire protection and noise transference issues but the plan is to relocate them in the public areas where possible.

8.26 In my view the conversion of the Mill is a much more successful

scheme than the 2005 scheme. It maintains the essential qualities of the building and does not involve any additions. Car parking to serve the building is out of sight and whilst there will be some visual/servicing impact deriving from the commercial use at ground floor this is dealt with discretely on the elevation facing the student accommodation block. I have addressed the issue of the impact of the building on the visual amenity of the Conservation Area in more depth below.

8.27 Both the Senior Conservation Officer and the JUDT support the

proposals for the Mill conversion. They have suggested a number of detailed conditions, which I have recommended.

Blocks L1 to L4 – appearance and scale of development 8.28 Blocks L2, L3 and L4 are of the same height, scale and

massing. They present elevations to the Southern Access Road and the Local Park and to the three ‘pocket parks’ that sit adjacent to them. Block L4, which sits at the southern end, also presents an elevation to the bus only access road off Hills Road. Each block has six floors including the ground floor and all floors accommodate flats, the only exception being L4, which also accommodates a community room at ground floor level. All floors are accessible by lift and stairs and each block is served by a communal entrance, ground floor cycle store and bin store to the north east corner of the block.

8.29 Block L1 differs from the other L Blocks in that the Parameter Plan allows this block to be an additional storey in height and for commercial space to be provided at ground floor level. An application for a non-material amendment, a report for which appears elsewhere on this agenda, has also submitted, if this is approved it will allow consideration of the proposal to introduce a frame at the uppermost storey which effectively removes the set back at this level.

8.30 Block L1 has seven floors. The ground floor accommodates commercial space which wraps around the north and west elevations of the building. To the east (Southern Access Road) there will be a commercial frontage and access to separate refuse stores for the commercial and residential uses. To the south (pocket park) there will be a commercial frontage, the side elevation of the refuse store and the access to the flats and a cycle store. Building front/Active frontage

8.31 Parameter Plan 6 includes information about the public realm and informal open space. I will deal with the space around the buildings later but another important consideration defined by this plan is where the active frontages of the blocks should be. With regard to Block L1 the active frontage is defined on all four

sides of the building and this is reflected in the plans for Block L1 which accord with this parameter. However the entrances to Blocks L2 to L4 are not on the Southern Access Road elevation which is the only ‘active frontage elevation’ defined by the Parameter Plan. An application for a non-material amendment, a report for which appears elsewhere on this agenda, has also submitted, if this is approved it will allow flexibility in where the active frontage is located but a location other than on the Southern Access Road elevation remains to be justified.

8.32 Both the Senior Conservation Officer and the JUDT have raised concerns about the treatment of the entrances to the building. While officers do not object to the potential for the entrances to be located other than on the Southern Access Road frontage, as submitted the proposals gave undue prominence to the cycle and bin stores on the corners and did not afford sufficient importance to the pedestrian entrances to the buildings.

8.33 The response from the applicant has been to amend the elevations of all blocks to increase the amount of glazing. Double doors will be provided to each of the apartments combined with a canopy above, making the entrances more visually prominent. In my view this overcomes the concerns raised by the Senior Conservation Officer and JUDT but I await their comments which I will report on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting. Design concept

8.34 The Design and Access Statement explores a number of features of the buildings in order to justify the overall design of the blocks. These include proportion, solidity and corners. Choice of materials is also reviewed and I will address this later. The view of the architect is that the comparative proportion of the L blocks is improved by the introduction of a frame to the uppermost floor. The effect of this change is to increase the mass of the building both through the additional storey permitted by the Parameter Plan and also the removal of the set back so that the eaves height and the full height of the building is the same. It is my view, shared by the Senior Urban Designer and the Design and Conservation Sub-Panel, that the proportions of L1 in comparison with the other L blocks is appropriate and the removal of the set back and introduction of the frame is acceptable.

8.35 The solidity of the buildings takes its cue from the language of

the historic buildings nearby, principally from Foster’s Mill. I think that this is the right approach. Openings for windows, doors and balconies appear as ‘punched holes’, which allow the solidity of the structure to dominate. The corners of the buildings are significant because they will be read together along the east and west facades. To the western elevation (the Park) the southwest and northwest corners are quite open but on the eastern side (Southern Access Road) the corners are more solid reflecting the proximity of Foster’s Mill. This approach also has the support of officers and the Sub-Panel. Elevations

8.36 The east elevation of all four L blocks faces the Southern Access Road. These elevations include the entrances to the cycle and refuse stores which in the case of L2 to L4 wrap around from the north elevation and in the case of L1 from the south elevation. In the case of blocks L2 to L4 the east elevation at ground level includes windows serving residential units and in the case of all blocks windows at upper floors to the flats. The windows are comparatively small in size and laid out in a regimented way, to acknowledge the proximity of windows serving the student accommodation in Blocks M1/M2 and the Mill building and to reflect the ordered elevation of the Mill. There are no balconies on the east elevation.

8.37 The Design and Access Statement refers to the north and south elevations of the buildings as having two distinct characters. The northern elevation is more ordered towards the Southern Access Road (east) end reflecting the fact that it accommodates the entrance to the building and the relationship with the Mill but less regimented to the Park (west) end. To the south side the elevations are less constrained. It is proposed to have a variety of window styles and balconies on the north, south and west elevations. The balconies have been the subject of discussion by the Design and Conservation Panel and there is support for the range of balcony styles that have been brought forward including balconies that are partially recessed into the building envelope. An application for a non-material amendment, a report for which appears elsewhere on this agenda, has also submitted, if this is approved it will allow the flexibility in the

depth of balconies up to a 1.8 m projection and allow what has been brought forward to be supported.

8.38 The omission of the set back of the uppermost storey of Block L1 has been discussed above in terms of the impact that this has on the external envelope of this block. However the uppermost floor is set in behind the ‘frame’. In the case of Blocks L2 to L4, the absence of a ‘frame’ will result in the recessive nature of the set back uppermost floors of these blocks being more apparent with the consequent effect of reducing the apparent height of the blocks. This was an aim of the Parameter Plan, which in my view has been realised by the detailed elevations of Blocks L2 to L4 as they have been brought forward.

8.39 The treatment of the elevations of the proposed buildings is supported by offices and the Sub Panel. Materials

8.40 All four blocks are to be finished in facing bricks and given their familial quality it is appropriate for them to be constructed in the same brick. The architects have argued in their Design and Access Statement that a contrasting brick should be used and not a light brick of the type used extensively in the area and specifically for Blocks M1/2, M5 and M6

8.41 The issue of whether or not the facing brick should contrast with or match the buff brick of surrounding buildings has been the subject of debate by officers and the Sub Panel. The latest meeting of the Sub Panel considered this issue in particular and reached the conclusion that the brick should complement the brickwork of surrounding buildings and not be a stark contrast. I agree with this conclusion as does the JUDT, the Senior Conservation Officer is of the view that there should not be a contrast. In my opinion the best way to resolve this issue is to require the construction of sample panels of a variety of facing brick colours on site to enable an appropriate selection to be made.

8.42 The plans indicate that some degree of textured brickwork is to be included which in my view should be supported as adding interest to the buildings.

8.43 In common with the approved materials for the adjacent blocks the rest of the materials palette is limited. At roof level metal cladding and perforated metal screens and canopies will reflect the use of similar materials for balcony balustrades and refuse/cycle store enclosures at lower levels. Windows are to be in aluminium frames and there will be some glazed balcony balustrades.

External spaces and landscaping/tree planting

8.44 Parameter Plan 6 defines a number of different characters of

space in the vicinity of the L Blocks and Block K2 including publicly accessible hard landscaping to the north and west of Block L1, other public realm around Block K2 and publicly accessible green areas/links between and to the west of the L Blocks. The approved Public Realm and Landscape Strategy for the CB1 development adds some detail to what these areas will look like, but this application sets out the fully detailed proposals. I will address each of the areas in turn.

Publicly accessible hard landscaping 8.45 It is proposed to provide the southern extent of the public space

between Block L1 and the new development to the north as part of this application up to the Southern Access Road. To the north western corner of this space with direct access off the Southern Access Road will be the vehicular access to the basement car park. This ramp will be two car widths wide at ground level to allow for a two way flow but will quickly reduce to a single car width as it goes underground. It is proposed to reduce the visual impact of the ramp by providing a planted pergola around it. There is a huge advantage for the public realm in siting the ramp in this position because it will lead to a significant reduction in traffic accessing the Southern Access Road. The remaining space is to be hard paved using conservation paving of the type already approved for the CB1 development. I have recommended a condition to secure the detailed design and implementation of the pergola.

8.46 Five cut leaf Grey Alder trees are proposed within the space which will be used as a thoroughfare for pedestrians and for outside seating associated with the surrounding uses. Cyclists will be discouraged from accessing this area through the detailed design of the wider park.

Other public realm

8.47 Hard paving will be provided around Foster’s Mill (Block K2) with a continuation of the line of White Birch trees along the Southern Access Road. Publicly accessible green areas/links

8.48 The application site includes land between the L Blocks and part of the Local Park which is proposed to the west. Three pocket parks are proposed between the L Blocks. The two between L2/L3 and L3/L4 are identical and address the change in level between the Southern Access Road and the Local Park. At their eastern end they feature a hard paved area surrounding a bound gravel bed which accommodates four False Acacia or Norway Maple trees. This space facilitates level access to the residential blocks off the Southern Access Road. At the western end is a ramp and steps which provide access to the Local Park which run alongside a planting bed and seating. The trees in each space are Manna Ash or Scholar’s Tree.

8.49 The space between Blocks L1 and L2 will have a different character partly derived from the fact that it does not need to address a change in level and also because it accommodates the pedestrian and cycle access to the basement parking area. To the eastern end will be a hard paved area similar to those between the other L blocks with four Flowering Cherry trees and to the western end raised lawns and planters to alleviate the visual impact of the access to the basement.

8.50 The CB1 development cannot deliver the full extent of the Local

Park until they have control of adjacent land within the Warren Close development. This is not currently the case because the land has yet to be transferred to the Council and for that reason this proposal delivers only the southern part of the Local Park which falls into the CB1 Masterplan area.

8.51 The Local Park area will sit at lower level than the adjacent residential blocks, both existing and proposed and will be to the north of an area of tree planting approved as part of the development of Blocks M5 and M6. The space will be laid to lawn with grassed terraces on the western side and steps and

planters to the south. A Chestnut Leafed Oak tree is proposed to the northern end.

8.52 The Landscape Proposals for this Phase set out the ways in which the detailed proposals deviate from the approved Public Realm and Landscape Strategy. These deviations are amendments to tree positions and species, detailed design solutions to the expanded basement area, more useable space in the area between Blocks L1 and L2 and other minor amendments. I do not consider that these changes undermine the vision for the public realm and landscaping of CB1 and the detailed designs are supported by the City Council Landscape Officer.

Impact on Heritage Assets

8.53 The Design and Access Statement incorporates a Heritage

Statement as required by Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning for the Historic Environment. The Senior Conservation Officer has not raised any concerns about this analysis and supports the scheme subject to the resolution of detailed design matters.

8.54 The application site is wholly within the Conservation Area but,

with the exception of Fosters Mill, will be surrounded by new buildings and spaces. The works to the Mill will in my view enhance the building itself as a BLI but also the wider Conservation Area and the setting of the listed Station buildings. Detailed conditions are recommended to ensure that the finished buildings are of the highest quality and that they will preserve and enhance the amenities of the Conservation Area.

8.55 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 4/11 and guidance provided by PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.

Community Facilities

8.56 The proposals include a community room at ground floor level

in Block L4. It has a floor area of 46 sq m including a store room and disabled toilet. Access is provided externally into the pocket park with hardstanding and planting to the threshold. Easy access is then afforded to the Local Park.

8.57 The s106 Agreement associated with the Outline planning consent requires that prior to development of the Blue Phase a Community Room Scheme and Community Room Management Plan be submitted for approval. These documents set out the detail of the community room e.g. fixtures and fittings and procedures for its management and maintenance. A draft document has been submitted for consideration by officers, amongst other things the document indicates that rental costs will be £15 per hour/£50 per day, with a 20% discount for CB1 residents. The community room needs to be provided in advance of first occupation of the Blue Phase and this is secured by the s106.

8.58 The s106 also secures commuted payments towards the cost of

employment of a Community Development Officer. These payments are spread over two years following commencement of any residential development. A further commuted payment (£46,217) is payable prior to the commencement of residential development which is to be used for the provision or improvement of facilities at the Junction or another community facility.

8.59 Cambridge PPF has raised objections with regard to the

provision of community facilities on site. The level of provision that has been brought forward accords with the requirements of the Outline planning permission in terms of the scale of provision. The location has changed from Block M6 but in my view the ground floor of Block L4 is a better location. It will be well related to the open space and residential accommodation, including the affordable units. I do not regard this location as being ‘tucked away’ and am not of the view that the community room must sit adjacent cafes/restaurants.

8.60 The JUDT supports the location of the community space in Block L4. The Sub Panel sought the relocation of the community space to Block L1 but the applicant decided not to amend the plans. In my view a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of inappropriate location of the community room could not be justified by planning policies.

8.61 I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire

and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8, Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 5/14, 9/9 and 10/1 and the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010.

Public Art

8.62 The provision of public art is secured via the s106 Agreement associated with the Outline planning consent. The s106 requires the submission of a Public Art Delivery Plan (PADP) for the Blue Phase with the submission of the reserved matters application. This submission has been made and the responsibility for approving the PADP lies with officers. Development cannot commence in this phase until the PADP has been approved.

8.63 The PADP has been amended to address concerns raised by

the Public Art Officer. It now proposes a permanent commission in the form of a sound sculpture and a temporary commission in the form of a lighting projection onto Fosters Mill during November/December 2011.

8.64 A public programme manager will be appointed to co-ordinate

the involvement of the public in the Public Art programme. Groups that have been targeted to date are existing residents, new residents (students), local workers and the Cambridge Arts Community.

8.65 I am awaiting the comments of the Public Art Officer and will

provide this response on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee Meeting.

Sustainable Development, Renewable energy and BREEAM

8.66 The application is supported by a number of documents that allow an assessment to be made of the sustainable development credentials of the proposed development. These have been secured by the planning conditions that were attached to the Outline planning consent.

8.67 Conditions 16, 18 and 20 jointly require that the development

achieves Code for Sustainable Homes minimum code 4, BREEAM excellent and a minimum of 15% of energy from renewable sources.

8.68 The Senior Sustainability Officer (Design and Construction) has assessed the submission and following the receipt of further

clarification supports the application. The Mill conversion has not been assessed under the Code for Sustainable Homes but under the Eco Homes system. This is acceptable as Condition 16 of the Outline Planning consent relates to new residential buildings and not conversions.

8.69 The Energy Strategy Report which supports the application

recommends the use of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system for the residential element and air source heat pumps for the commercial elements. These will deliver carbon savings of 19.55% and 15.77% respectively. Together with energy efficiency measures these will achieve the appropriate carbon savings for the development and allow the discharge of condition 20 on the outline planning consent which requires 15% of the energy needs of the development to be achieved by renewable energy sources.

8.70 Although the discharge of conditions 16, 18 and 20 are not of

direct relevance to the reserved matters submission they are relevant in terms of the design of the scheme. The CHP boiler will be located in the basement of Block L1 from where the system can be expanded to other blocks in the development. I have recommended a condition to secure the approval of any flues associated with the CHP boiler.

8.71 A sustainable urban drainage scheme is proposed as part of the

development, which includes attenuation tanks under the Local Park. The Sustainable Drainage Engineer is satisfied with the proposals, as they have been outlined so far but recommends that a condition be used to secure control over the detailed design. I have recommended an appropriate condition.

8.72 I am satisfied that the applicants have suitably addressed the

issue of sustainable development and renewable energy and the proposal is in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/16 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD.

Disabled access

8.73 The Design and Access Statement confirms that level access is

provided for all. Lifts are provided to all floors including the basement. All balconies and ground floor terraces will have level access but this will be more difficult to achieve on the top floor terraces. Mobility scooter storage and charging points will

be provided in blocks L3 and L4 within the ground floor cycle stores. Landscaped areas have been designed to provide access for people with all forms of disability and have been discussed at pre-application stage with the Disability Consultative Panel. I have recommended informatives to address the issues raised by the Disability Consultative Panel.

8.74 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

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

Residential Amenity Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers Block K2

8.75 Block K2 (Fosters Mill) is located in excess of 40 metres from the nearest residential properties in the Warren Close development. I do not consider that there will be any impact on the occupiers of these properties in terms of a reduction of residential amenity arising from the occupation of Block K2.

8.76 Block K2 sits to the north of the new student residential blocks that are currently under construction. The buildings are on the same alignment, which prevents any overlooking from the principle elevations to the front and back. Windows are proposed in the south (side) elevation which face the student blocks and there will be windows in this elevation of the student accommodation. A similar inter-relationship would result if the extant approval for the Mill conversion were implemented. Although there will be potential for inter-looking, given the high-density urban nature of the scheme it is my view that this is acceptable. Block L1

8.77 Block L1 sits between the Mill and the Warren Close development and provides a level of screening between the blocks. There is a separation distance of 16 metres between Block L1 and the side elevation of the nearest block on the Warren Close development. The rest of the Warren Close blocks will be more than 50 metres away. There are some secondary windows in the side elevation of the Warren Close block but primary windows face to the south and therefore I do

not consider that there will be any significant impact on the occupiers of these properties in terms of a reduction of residential amenity arising from the occupation of Block L1. Blocks L2, L3 and L4

8.78 These blocks are located in excess of 40 metres from the nearest residential properties in the Warren Close development and the Local Park occupies the space in between. I do not consider that there will be any impact on the occupiers of Warren Close in terms of a reduction of residential amenity.

8.79 Student accommodation, which forms part of the Cb1 development, is under construction to the east of Blocks L2, L3 and L4. There is a separation distance of approximately 11 metres between the L blocks and the student accommodation to the east and there is large number of habitable room windows in the student block facing the L blocks. This arrangement would normally allow for high levels of inter-looking however the internal layout of the proposed units has been set out to mitigate this to a high degree. There are no primary habitable room windows facing the student blocks. Some secondary windows, kitchen and bedroom windows are provided. I consider that there is a balance to be struck between providing natural surveillance and protecting privacy and in this case the arrangement is acceptable. In reaching this view I am mindful of the advice of the JUDT regarding the urban nature of the development.

8.80 Blocks L1 to L4 are located to the west of the student

accommodation and the Mill. This will mean that as the sun moves around there will some overshadowing of these blocks by the L blocks in the latter part of the day. However there is space between the L blocks which will allow sunlight penetration at these times and this arrangement has already been established by the approval of the Parameter Plans. Similarly the orientation of Block L1 to the south side of the new public space will cause the overshadowing of this space. However, whist this will affect the amenity for the people using the space it will not affect residential amenity.

8.81 Windows in the south elevation of Block L4 face towards the

student accommodation block which is under construction to the south. The separation distance is 20 metres and the bus only

access road intervenes. Given these circumstances I do not consider that there will be significant levels of overlooking. Also given that Block L4 is to the north of the student accommodation there will be no overshadowing to the student blocks.

Commercial Uses in Blocks K2 and L1 and the Community Room in Block L4

8.82 The non-residential uses within the development are likely to

generate a degree of noise and disturbance over and above what would normally be associated with a purely residential area. However CB1 is a mixed use development and the Parameter Plans have established that the commercial uses are acceptable here. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the discharge of conditions attached to the Outline Planning Permission is adequate to control impacts from non-residential uses.

Amenity for future occupiers of the site

8.83 In my view the development will generally provide a good

environment for new residents. To the east the L blocks are bounded by the Southern Access Road which will be a lightly trafficked road and to the west by public space and the Local Park. The pocket parks between the blocks and also the Local Park provide for shared amenity space, while the balconies and terraces provide some outside private amenity space. At ground floor level the terraces are carefully designed so that a change in level between the blocks and the Local Park benefits amenity.

8.84 Block L4 faces the bus only road to the south, which will have

some impact on the outlook from the flats in this block, but given the low level of traffic I do not consider this impact to be unduly problematic. As submitted there was potential for the noise levels on balconies in Block L4 to exceed the standards set by the Outline Planning Permission, however the applicants are in the process of amending the plans to address this point. I will provide an update on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting.

8.85 Block K2 (The Mill) sits to the east of the L Blocks and will be

affected by overshadowing in the same way as the student

blocks. In common with those blocks the open space between Blocks L1 and L2 will allow a high degree of light penetration.

8.86 As discussed above there is potential for overlooking and inter-

looking between Block K2 and the student accommodation. This is also possible between Block L1 and Block K2 although the separation distance is greater at 11.5 metres (compared with 6 metres). I would put forward the same argument that in a high density urban situation such a degree of inter-looking is acceptable and has been mitigated to an appropriate degree by the internal arrangements in Block L1.

8.87 A Daylight/Sunlight Report has been submitted in support of the

application. This considers availability of natural light to rooms within the flats by reference the ‘daylight factor,’ which describes the ratio of inside luminance to the unobstructed outside luminance. The report identifies five rooms within the development where there will be an ‘adverse’ access to natural light, three of which are in Block K2 and are a result of the existing window configuration. Of the remaining two, one in each of Block L2 and L3, both involve windows serving bedrooms where it can be argued the need for natural light is not so crucial. The report concludes that no changes are needed to scheme to address the study. In my view the report demonstrates that adequate natural light will be available to future residents.

Refuse Arrangements

8.88 All five blocks will have ground floor refuse stores that are easily

accessible from the Southern Access Road. The bins will be moved to on street collection areas on collection days. The refuse stores as originally proposed are not acceptable and the Environmental Health Officer has been unable to recommend the discharge of condition 42. Amended plans have been submitted and passed to the Environmental Health Officer for comment. I will provide an update on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee Meeting.

Highway Safety

8.89 Access within the site was determined at the outline planning stage, therefore access is not a reserved matter. The Highway Authority raised some detailed points that have been addressed

by the applicant. The Authority has asked for information to be brought to the attention of the applicant for instance in relation to adoption of the public highway. I have added informatives as requested.

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

Car and Cycle Parking

Car Parking

8.91 Condition 57 of the Outline Planning Permission allows for the provision of car parking on the basis of a maximum of 0.7 spaces/residential unit and 1 space/125 sq m of commercial development.

8.92 The following table shows a comparison between the permitted number of car parking spaces for each block against the proposed provision.

Block No. of dwellings

Permitted no. of car parking spaces

Proposed no. of car parking spaces

K2 19 13 14

L1 38 27 23

L2 43 30 26

L3 35 25 21

L4 34 24 20

Total 169 119 104

8.93 The table demonstrates that the number of car parking spaces

allocated for use by each block does not exceed the level of car parking permitted under the terms of the Outline Planning Permission. Following negotiations with the County Council 9 car parking spaces are to be allocated for use by visitors, including two parking spaces for use by disabled people.

8.94 The actual number of spaces that are to be provided within a basement under the L blocks is 124 spaces. This is because it includes 15 spaces for use in connection with Block K1 which is in another part to the CB1 Masterplan and 5 spaces for use in connection with the commercial uses in this phase. In my view the level of provision for the commercial uses is appropriate. I also have no objection in principle to the provision of car parking space for use in connection with a future part of the masterplan. The applicant’s have confirmed that these spaces will be blocked off and unusable. I have recommended a condition to address this. In the same condition I have also sought to secure the details of the layout and allocation of car parking spaces.

8.95 Condition 26 of the outline planning consent requires that 5% of

all car parking spaces be available for people with disabilities. Six spaces are shown in the car park to be allocated for use by disabled residents. This amounts to just over 5% of spaces.

8.96 Condition 57 of the outline planning consent also requires that

all reserved matters applications for residential and commercial development be supported by evidence to demonstrate that the proposed car parking provision will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the light of information derived from the on site continuous air quality monitoring station. The monitoring station has been installed, however it has not been operational for very long and Environmental Health officers have some concerns about relying on the outputs from the monitoring station. Although the discharge of this condition is not directly relevant to the submission of reserved matters adjustments to car parking provision could have implications for the site layout. I will provide an update on this issue on the Amendment Sheet or orally at the Committee meeting.

8.97 The s106 Agreement associated with the Outline planning

consent requires that a car parking survey be carried out enable the impact of overspill parking on streets the east side of railway to be assessed. The methodology for the survey has been agreed by the County Council and it will be implemented shortly. A further survey is required to be carried out upon request by the County Council to establish whether there has been any change. If following the second survey it is the view of the County Council that a residents parking scheme should be introduced then the costs of doing so fall to the site owners.

This survey is not of direct relevance to the reserved matters submission. Residents Cycle Parking

8.98 The adopted cycle parking standards require provision of at least one cycle space per bedroom with additional visitor parking. By the application of this standard 285 cycle spaces are needed for residents. I have addressed visitor parking below.

8.99 The application makes provision for 283 cycle parking spaces for use by residents. This takes the form of 177 sheffield stand parking spaces in the basement, 34 sheffield stand parking spaces at ground level in blocks L1 to L4 and 72 spaces in high density stands in the basement.

8.100 Access to the basement cycle parking spaces is via a separate access from ground level between Blocks L1 and L2. The access faces towards the Local Park and takes the form of steps with ramps to either side. A similar arrangement has been approved for the office development at 21 Station Road. The ramp is 2.2 m wide with landings 1.8 m wide; it has a gradient of 1:3. The door into the basement will open automatically and will be 1.5 m wide. There is a lift from the basement into each of the L Blocks which cyclists will use once they have parked their cycles.

8.101 A plan has been provided which shows how cycle parking spaces will be subdivided between the L blocks and Block K2. There is no basement under Block K2/The Mill, therefore cycle provision is made in the main basement with lift access via Block L1 to exit. All cycle parking spaces are generally shown close to the relevant lift access.

8.102The City Council Walking and Cycling Officer and SUSTRANS have raised concerns about the cycle parking provision in respect of access to cycle parking and type of stands. Access to cycle parking

8.103 The applicants have been asked to give consideration to amending the nature and position of access to the basement and amendments have been made. I understand the concerns

about the whether cyclists of all abilities will find the basement cycle parking easy to access. I agree that there is likely to be a wider cross section of abilities associated with residential occupancy as opposed to office occupancy. The ramp and steps have been designed to have gradient as low as possible and there are alternative spaces at ground level for cyclists who are unable to access the basement both within the blocks and outside. . The application has also been amended to provide for a larger lift in Block L4 which will accommodate a cycle. All residents will be given key fob access to use this lift, which provides an alternative to using the ramp/steps access. The applicants have advised that the management plan for the blocks will allow for the allocation of spaces in an appropriate manner

8.104 Another aspect of the concerns regarding access is the location of the access in relation to where cyclists will be arriving/departing. Again I understand the view that the ramp/stairs should be taken off the Southern Access Road and this has been put to the applicants. No alternative arrangement has been brought forward. The applicants argue that there will be sufficient space between the car park access ramp and Block L1 to facilitate access by cyclists and outside café seating and that there is adequate access via the Southern Access Road across the pocket park. As the CB1 development will be managed and public areas controlled I am inclined to agree with their view.

8.105 It has also been suggested that more than one access/exit point should be provided. This has been addressed by the potential for lift access via Block L4 which will be accessible to all residents. Cycle Parking Stands

8.105Both Sheffield stands and hi capacity stands are proposed. Access within the car parking area to both styles of parking space is tight but in line with approved standards. Within the basement, 72 % of cycle parking is provided in Sheffield stands and the remaining 28% in high capacity stands. I consider that this is a fair split to reflect the abilities of cyclists to access the spaces. I have recommended a condition to secure details of the high capacity spaces to ensure that the issue of an appropriate locking mechanism is addressed.

8.106 I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised but I do not

consider that they raise sufficiently serious issue so as to justify a recommendation of refusal on the grounds of access to or style of cycle parking provision. Visitor Parking and Cycle Parking for use in connection with Commercial Units

8.107 50 visitor cycle parking spaces are provided outside the entrances to each block and 10 spaces are provided in the basement for use in connection with the commercial units by staff. There is no standard for visitor parking but it is necessary for large scale housing developments. The commercial uses generate a need for 32 spaces based on occupation by shops and a higher provision for restaurants/cafes. Of the spaces provided it seems reasonable to me that 30 are notionally provided for the commercial uses leaving 20 as visitor spaces to serve the flats.

8.108 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policies 8/6 and 8/10.

Third Party Representations 8.109 I have addressed most the comments made in my assessment,

particularly those relating to the site context and building design. The Ecological work that has been carried out accords with the Outline Planning Permission. A Transport Impact Assessment was completed in support of the Outline Planning Application which was accepted by officers and the Planning Committee.

8.110 I have addressed the concerns raised by SUSTRANS in my

section regarding cycle parking provision.

Outstanding issues raised by internal and external consultees

8.111 There are no additional outstanding issues above those already

raised in the paragraphs above.

Planning Obligation Strategy 8.112 This is a reserved matters submission and necessary mitigation

measures are already secured via the Planning Obligation secured under the outline planning permission. The implementation of the development will trigger commuted payments in relation to open space, community facilities and transport infrastructure.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 This submission relates to the important first phase of the CB1

Station Area redevelopment. In my view the application should be supported because it does deliver on the vision established by the Masterplan and brings forward much needed student accommodation in a setting which is likely to encourage further positive improvement to an area of the city which forms part of the Conservation Area but which is in urgent need of regeneration. The submission is a significant improvement upon the previous submission which although recommended by officers was not supported by Planning Committee.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of all metal clad roofs, including materials, colours, surface finishes and relationships to rooflights or other rooftop features shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12) 2. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of all boiler flues, soil pipes, waste pipes or air extract trunking, etc. shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12)

3. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details, including large scale plans, of all new / altered sills, lintels, jambs, transoms, mullions, thresholds, etc. shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All joinery [window frames, etc.] shall be recessed at least 50 / 75mm back from the face of the wall / facade. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12) 4. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of all new / altered metalwork (stairs, balustrades, grilles, railings, brackets), etc shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12) 5. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of all coatings [paint, colourwash, etc.] to be applied to masonry or other external walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Colours should be specified by means of the RAL or British Standard (BS 4800:1989) systems and not by means of manufacturer’s trade names. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12) 6. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of the means by which the historic iron columns and beams are to be carefully removed and stored in a safe & secure manner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The removal and storage shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12)

7. Prior to the commencement of conversion of Foster’s Mill/Block

K2, full details of the means by which the historic iron columns and beams are to be installed in the ground floor area of the converted building or details of such other use as is to be made of the historic iron columns and beams shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of a Building of Local

Interest (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/12) 8. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details including samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11)

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

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

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

quality and colour of the detailing of the brickwork/stonework and jointing is acceptable and maintained throughout the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/12)

10. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception of below ground works, full details of all external new or altered metal framed doors and surrounds, windows and frames, etc. shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In the case of proprietary items made from standard metal sections, samples showing the dimensions & cross-section of the metal profile may be acceptable instead. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11)

11. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of metal or other mesh, punched sheet metal or other screening materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11)

12. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of the type of coping to the new/repaired/rebuilt masonry walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces

is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11)

13. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of glass type(s) to be used in windows/doors/screens/roofs/stairwells or other glazed features within the development 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 ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces is appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11)

14. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of any proposed ventilation extract flues associated with the installation of the CHP boiler or any other plant, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the streetscene

and the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/15 and 4/11)

15. Prior to the commencement of use of the retail units located in

Block L1, full details of any proposed ventilation extract flues shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the streetscene

and the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/15, 4/11 and 4/12)

16. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the

means by which access to the car access ramp and cycle access ramp/stairs will be secured shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include the means by which unauthorised access to the ramp/stairs is to be prevented and details of any gates or other physical barriers to be erected at ground level. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, which shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of any block and shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To provide convenient and safe access to cycle

storage areas. (Cambridge Local Plan policy 8/6)

17. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception of below ground works, full details of the pergola above the access ramp serving the underground car park 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 interest of visual amenity of the streetscene and

the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/15 and 4/11)

18. The development shall not be occupied until 285 cycle parking

spaces have been provided for use in association with the residential development, 10 cycle parking spaces have been provided for use in association with the retail development and 50 on street cycle parking spaces have been provided for visitors. The cycle parking spaces shall thereafter be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and in

the interests of highway safety and convenience. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 8/10).

19. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior

to the commencement of development, with the exception of below ground works, full details of the high capacity cycle stands 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 avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and in

the interests of highway safety and convenience. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 8/10).

20. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, with the exception of below ground works, full details the layout of car and cycle parking in the basement, including the allocation of spaces between Blocks K2, L1, L2, L3, L4 and visitor parking, the means by which such allocation will be managed and the means by which access to surplus car parking spaces will be prevented 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 avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and in

the interests of highway safety and convenience. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 8/10).

21. Prior to the commencement of occupation, the on-site storage

facilities for domestic and trade waste, including waste for recycling and the arrangements for the disposal of waste detailed on the approved plans shall be provided. The approved arrangements shall be retained thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers

and in the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

22. Prior to the commencement of occupation, full details of the

means by which domestic and trade waste will be collected from the site, including the means by which refuse containers will be moved to the street frontage for collection and returned to the refuse store after the collection of waste and the location of on-street storage on collection days, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The approved arrangements shall be retained thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers

and in the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

23. Prior to the commencement of occupation, a lighting plan including details of the height, type, position and angle of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers

and in the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

24. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of all shopfronts and advertisement display areas to be installed 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 interest of visual amenity of the streetscene and

the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/15 and 4/11)

25. The retail unit accommodated in Block L1 shall not be open for

trade nor shall deliveries be made to it between the hours of 2300 hrs and 0800 hrs.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residents and

residents of the adjacent student accommodation. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

26. Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception

of below ground works, full details of signage associated with the community room 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 interest of visual amenity of the streetscene and

the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12, 3/15 and 4/11)

27. The community room accommodated in Block L4 shall not be

used between the hours of 2300 hrs and 0800 hrs.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residents and residents of the adjacent student accommodation. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

28. The manoeuvring areas and access shall be provided as shown

on the approved plans and shall be retained free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety (Cambridge Local

Plan 2006 policy 8/2). 29. Prior to the commencement of development or within such other

timescale as is agreed by the local planning authority, full details of the sustainable drainage scheme 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 provide sustainable drainage. (Cambridge Local

Plan policy 8/18) INFORMATIVE: This development involves work to the public

highway that will require the approval of the County Council as Highway Authority. It is an offence to carry out any works within the public highway, which includes a public right of way, without the permission of the Highway Authority. Please note that it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that, in addition to planning permission, any necessary consents or approvals under the Highways Act 1980 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 are also obtained from the County Council. Public Utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. Contact the appropriate utility service to reach agreement on any necessary alterations, the cost of which must be borne by the applicant.

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

INFORMATIVE: In the interest of meeting the needs of disabled

people and people with limited mobility it is recommended as follows:

Baths should be capable of adaptation to showers. Bathroom doors should open outwards. Lifts should have a secondary power supply. Disabled toilets should be provided in commercial units.

The Community Room should be fitted with induction loops.

Ramps in the pocket parks should be 1:20 gradient. There should be a secure storage space for mobility

scooters and a charging point. INFORMATIVE: Food Safety - As the premises are intended to

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

INFORMATIVE: Licensing - If the premises are intended to

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

INFORMATIVE: To satisfy condition 38 of application ref. 08/0266 Fume Filtration/Extraction details should be provided in accordance with Annex B of the, Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems, prepared by Netcen on behalf of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) dated January 2005 available at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/research/kitchenexhaust/documents/kitchenreport.pdf

INFORMATIVE: To satisfy condition 37 of application ref.

08/0266 Noise Insulation, the noise level from all plant and equipment, vents etc (collectively) associated with this application should not raise the existing background level (L90) by more than 3 dB(A) (i.e. the rating level of the plant needs to match the existing background level). This requirement applies both during the day (0700 to 2300 hrs over any one hour period) and night time (2300 to 0700 hrs over any one 5 minute period), at the boundary of the premises subject to this application and having regard to noise sensitive premises. Tonal/impulsive noise frequencies should be eliminated or at least considered in any assessment and should carry an additional 5 dB(A) correction. This is to guard against any creeping background noise in the area and prevent unreasonable noise disturbance to other premises.

It is recommended that the agent/applicant submits a noise

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

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

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

Any report shall include raw measurement data so that

conclusions may be thoroughly evaluated and calculations checked.

INFORMATIVE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure

that satisfactory provision is made for fire hydrants. INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in

conjunction with outline planning permission reference 08/0266/OUT and its associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

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

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

East of England Plan 2008 policies: SS1, SS2, SS3, H1, H2,

T2, T3, T9, T13, T14, ENV1, ENV3, ENV6, ENV7, ENG1, WAT 2, WAT 4 and WM6.

Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies: 3/1, 3/3, 3/4, 3/7, 3/11,

3/12, 3/13, 3/15, 4/4, 4/10, 4/11, 4/12, 4/13, 4/14, 4/15, 5/1, 5/5, 5/10, 5/12, 6/8, 6/10, 8/1, 8/2, 8/4, 8/6, 8/8, 8/9, 8/10, 8/16, 8/17, 8/18, 9/1 and 9/9

2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other

material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission. These reasons for approval can be a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision please see the officer report online at www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A – COMMENTS/CONCLUSIONS AND VERDICTS FROM DESIGN AND CONSERVATION (CB1) SUB-PANEL Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 29 September 2010) (Pre-application) Presentation: Draft options for the redevelopment and conversion of Foster’s Mill. The Panel’s comments were summarised as follows:

� The Panel welcome the proposal to re-instate some of the mill’s original features.

� Conservation Area. The design team need to fully demonstrate their understanding of the proposal’s impact on the surrounding area, as well as the mill’s historic significance. Further work needs to be done in this respect.

� Windows. The size of the windows was not made clear in the presentation. The proportions will need to be compatible with the character of the building.

� Additional floor. The majority felt that the possibility of an additional set of windows would also have a significant impact both externally and internally. Some concern was also expressed regarding the sill at the bottom of the windows resting on a plinth.

� Material fabric of the external facades. The majority of the Panel expressed some doubt as to the need for such major alterations, as the argument for renewing all the brickwork was unconvincing. The Mill had been painted for a long time.

� Internal structure. Further information is needed here.

� Internal character has also not been fully developed and seems largely dependent on the additional floor and windows. The majority of the Panel expressed some uneasiness as to how the existing internal character might be sustained, particularly in light of the consented scheme’s negative impact. As a BLI, the character should be legible through the internal conversion.

Conclusion This is an opportunity to fully evaluate a Building of Local Interest in order to create a genuine, high quality warehouse conversion which preserves the building’s character and demonstrates it’s significance

both historically and within its setting. At present however, the majority of the Panel felt the evaluation had not been sufficiently thorough in order to justify the proposals: the relative impacts and benefits of each option need to be understood and demonstrated, particularly in the context of building regulations and daylight studies etc. [In the view of the majority, the case for inserting an additional floor had not been made in terms of character and conservation. VERDICT - GREEN (1), AMBER (5) (RED to insertion of the additional floor) Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 19 January 2011) (Pre-application) Presentation 1: Revisions to the proposal to redevelop Foster’s Mill The Panel’s comments on the revisions to the Mill were as follows:

� The Panel welcome the overall strategy, particularly the decision to retain the existing number of floors and to maintain as closely as possible the existing fenestration and window details.

� Amenity space options. The Panel favoured the option of a winter garden with a glazed opening window (Option 1) because it promises to maintain the regular rhythm of the fenestration and the uninterrupted sweep of the faēade.

� Glazing versus handrails. The Panel felt glazing was more in keeping with character of the old building.

� Balconies. The Panel was not in favour of balconies: their projection and the associated recession for a terrace would interrupt the elevation. The Panel took the view that any projection should be minimal and carefully related to projection of the principal piers project beyond the rest of the East and West facades.

Conclusion: The Panel welcomed the decision to abandon the extra floor of residential accommodation and commended the design team for their clear presentation of the options. The Panel took the view that the glazing should maintain the building’s historic character - thus favouring Option 1 - and that balconies should be avoided, particularly on the East and West elevations.

VERDICT – GREEN (unanimous) on the basis of no additional floor and Option 1. AMBER – 1, GREEN – 4 on the general approach.

Presentation 2: Blocks L1-L4 (including car park entrance between L1 and L2 and overall revised landscaping) The Panel’s comments were as follows:

� The Panel warmly welcome the development of the four blocks as a ‘family’ of buildings with the treatment of the walls as pierced screens and the use of a brick in keeping with Foster’s Mill and the station building.

� The Panel recognise the case for a limited differentiation of L1 in view of its position at the end of the site and the height of the adjacent buildings. The Panel considered that omission of the set back on the upper floor agreed for the four blocks, would provide variation but not disruption of the familial similarities of the four blocks. However, more radical changes would represent a breach of the design parameters already agreed for the site and would need to be explored with the planning authority.

� The Panel wondered whether the community room would be better located along with the commercial space of on the ground floor of L1. There was a general feeling that a more central location would be likely to ensure more active use of the space.

� Balconies. Private amenity space, provided in the form of balconies, has been specified as a requirement for the four blocks. The design team has yet to consider their detail design but the Panel noted the difficulties that were likely to arise with overlooking between the blocks and between balconies of the same block.

� Car park entrance. The Panel was concerned that the ramp providing access to the car park, would adversely affect the public courtyard giving access to blocks L1 and 2. The Panel wondered whether access might be better provided further north, where it could be linked to the proposed car access for the adjacent blocks, and would reduce the number of cars using the access road to the east. However, the Panel accept this would create a conflict with the publicly accessible open space.

Conclusion.

The Panel felt the approach to the design of the blocks as a ‘family of buildings’ was entirely appropriate. It also welcomed the overall approach to the general landscaping and considered the differentiation between north and south and the hard and green landscaping was well judged. However the Panel considered that some further work is needed on the design of the car park entrance as part of the reconsideration of the ground floor of Block I, but hoped that this would be achieved without compromising the important cycle or pedestrian route across the site. VERDICT – GREEN (subject to the reconsideration of the car park entrance) Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 16 February 2011) (Pre-application) Presentation 1 – The CB1 Masterplan: Blocks I1, I2 and K1 (the former silo) and the surrounding public spaces. The presentation included the following elements:

� Transforming Block I2 into two separate blocks (Nos 50 and 60 Station Road) with characters specific to the avenue.

� Providing a ‘kinked’ access to Station Square to provide an improved view of the station building.

� Addressing the remains of the silo and its relationship to the Mill while improving the setting and view of the silo.

� Looking at the pedestrian route between Nos 60 and No 2 The Square.

� Reorientation of tree planting.

� Sheltered colonnades. The Panel’s comments were as follows:

� It is still unclear whether K1 is acting effectively as the centre point for the southern end of Station Square.

� The proposed diagonal route through to Station Square will have a significant impact on the way that building facades and the sequence of buildings is experienced.

� The elimination of I2 is a great improvement; the Panel had felt this was poorly placed in relation to the square.

� The Panel welcomed the creation of the proposed ‘anti chamber’ to the southeast of Station Square as a valuable extension of the public realm.

� The building line of Nos 50 and 60 may need further work, but this might be addressed reviewing by the depth of the colonnades.

� The selection of trees to be placed in front of the colonnades will have to take account of their proportions when fully grown.

� The public open spaces between the blocks needs to be widened to take account of the desire lines of pedestrians.

� The height of the replacement for the silo building and its relationship to the Mill needs refinement, but the Panel favoured the taller of the options presented as a way of adding definition to the area south of Station Square.

Conclusions: The Panel recognises that the presentation covered ‘work in progress’ but broadly welcomed these amendments to the Masterplan. The Panel wish to stress however, that these amendments can only be achieved if the vehicular access to the car park is relocated. The Panel also expects that the architectural qualities of Blocks K1, Nos 50, 60 and No2 The Square will be of a high standard.

Presentation 2 – Blocks L1-L4 and surrounding landscaping. The Panel’s comments were as follows:

� Pedestrian and cycle access to car park. The Panel suggest that this be moved from the green space between Blocks L1 and L2, and incorporated into one of the buildings.

� L2 and L3 active frontages and access. The Panel supports Option 3 with the cycle access at the front. Seating should be provided in the pocket parks.

� Balconies. The Panel welcome the terms in which the design team are exploring the options. At the width currently proposed, however, the Panel question whether they can be anything other than elevational ‘dressing’ to the blocks. The relationship to the park of the balconies on the west-facing elevation needs to be treated with

caution: if too large they would have a damaging impact on the quality of the public space.

� Elevational studies. The Panel would welcome information on treatment of the top floor set backs and how this would appear from the surrounding spaces.

� Space planning. The Panel was concerned that the provision of balconies was being used to compensate for the limited space standards of the flats. With five apartments per floor, the Panel thought that some would lack sufficient amenity space.

Conclusion: The Panel welcome the proposed new location of the vehicular access ramp to the north west of L1, but cautioned that the movement of traffic would have to be carefully considered. The Panel recognised the part that balconies might play in providing amenity space, but would discourage their use as mere decoration. If they can provide no real gain, the Panel raised as an alternative option, the use of a glazed floor to ceiling opening with French windows making it possible to open the internal space to the outside world and to create a feeling of additional space. Particular care needs to be taken with the elevations facing the park, as dominant balconies might well erode the quality of the public spaces, particularly that to the west of the four blocks. VERDICT – on the overall strategy for the public spaces: AMBER (3), GREEN (5) on the proviso that this is ‘work in progress’ and that the vehicular access to the car park is located to the north west of L1. Elevations and balconies – AMBER (7), GREEN (1). The Panel would encourage further work in this area. Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of 11 May 2011) (Pre-application) Presentation 1 – The Re-alignment of the Southern Access Road

The Panel’s comments and conclusion:

The Panel were broadly happy with the proposed arrangements, and took comfort from the fact that the main pedestrian and cycle route to the southern park would be

maintained, and that there would be no conflict with the Guided Bus to the north.

In terms of the landscaping and servicing, the Panel were informed that the access ramp at 50 and 60 Station Road was being considered in more detail. The Panel looks forward to reviewing the outcome at a future meeting.

Presentation 2 – Blocks K2 & L1 – L4 (Blue Phase) Focussing first on the landscaping and then on elevations and materials, the presentation addressed the following issues:

� Ramps to car-parking - The proposals for the relocation of the access ramp to the north of L1, recommended by the Panel, were presented along with the landscaping; a smaller access ramp for bicycles is also to be located between L1 and L2.

� Parking - There will be 124 parking spaces with 6% allocated for the disabled.

� Elevations – Deep reveals to windows, with laser-cut metal sheeting at ground floor disguising refuse and cycle storage, as well as at top floor.

� Southern elevation of L4. This will have inset balconies and amenity space due to the proximity of the Guided Bus.

� The Southern Access Road – As this is only 10meters wide, consideration has been given to the privacy of residents in the nearby blocks, with no bedrooms and balconies overlooking.

� Choice of Brick - Contrasting brick colour for L blocks, marking them as pavilion buildings.

The Panel’s comments were as follows: Landscaping (Context)

� The Panel is concerned that the public square will be a very busy space, not least because of the ramped access to the parking. In its current form, it is not clear how different users, pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists, will be able to negotiate the sharing of this space without conflict while finding their way around the café tables and street furniture and through the landscaping to their various destinations.

� The Panel are aware that there are procedural difficulties in terms of land transfer that have yet to be resolved. Though sympathetic to the issue, the Panel are concerned that these difficulties will affect the delivery of the landscaping and its use for quite long periods, until the completion of the final phase.

� The Panel also faces a difficulty in judging the landscaping for CB1 as a whole, when it is only ever presented in the partial context of a series of individual projects. From the Panel’s point of view it is vital that the landscaping plans for CB1 are viewed as a whole. The success of the public spaces for the area can only be secured by showing how the different elements of landscaping, road access and public open space come together. The Panel welcome the role of Savills as design co-ordinators for the CB1 area, and look to them to take the lead in ensuring the coherence of both the design and their presentation of proposals for the whole the area.

Community Room

There has been discussion at previous presentations of the community space, and members of the Panel have questioned the location of the community room in L4. The Panel inclines to the view that this room would be more logically placed in L1 closer to the commercial uses in the development, and would welcome at the next presentation an explanation for the current proposals.

Elevations – balconies and reveals

� The Panel gave a general welcome to the proposals to use laser-cut metal screens for balcony fronts and as elements on the upper levels of the faēades. After the concern expressed last time about the design of the ‘diving board’ like balconies, the Panel finds that the new proposals accord better with the room behind, thus making them more part of the dwelling.

� The Panel welcome the different ways that the elevations and the balconies are being handled to take account of the variety of views and conditions of exposure on different elevations, but feels that the southern elevation of L4 should be reviewed to avoid what appears to be the ‘canyon’ like effect in relation to the buildings opposite.

� Concrete reveals. The Panel were presented with a palette but no preferred options. The suggestions put forward could well be successful in creating contrasting

variations between blocks to address issues of privacy, views over the landscaped park or proximity to the Guided Bus, but at the scale at which the proposals have been presented, they are difficult to judge. Panel would like to see 1:50 scale drawings and clearer images of the elevations in order to evaluate them thoroughly.

Elevations – brickwork

� The Panel were intrigued by the ideas for the texture and colour of the brickwork and the way that these would contrast with the surrounding buildings. However, because these buildings are part of a Conservation Area, a strong case must be made for the move away from the Cambridge tradition. The Panel has yet to be persuaded.

� The choice of brick is clearly crucial to the success of the way that the blocks L1 – L4 are read in relation to the surrounding buildings, but the Panel takes the view that the design has not been presented in sufficient detail, particularly in terms of the texture and colour to judge the outcome. The Panel welcomes discussion on contrasting brick in generic terms - though a majority of the members would probably opt against a dark, uniform colour - but wish to see more detail at a future meeting. Again, the issue of context is crucially relevant to judging how the blocks relate to one another, and whether blocks L1 to L4 are foreground or background buildings.

VERDICT: Landscaping - AMBER (unanimous). The design team may continue on the current basis but the Panel wishes to emphasise the crucial need for proper co-ordination of the design for the area as a whole. The Elevations of the Blocks L1- L4 - The Panel welcome the setting out of the palette of materials but cannot comment further without detailed drawings of the elevations. It is the Panel’s view that the submission of an application without these details would be premature.