Agenda item

An aparthotel / hotel with the addition of mixed-use facilities, includes the erection of a building above a basement, car parking, landscaping, and other associated works.

By affirmation, with one abstention, the Committee agreed to:

·       An amendment to Condition 19 regarding details of a Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan.

·       The addition of a criterion to Condition 24 regarding litter management.

·       The addition of a condition regarding noise mitigation.

·       An amendment to the Heads of Terms to make reference to a £5,000 contribution towards the provision of double yellow lines as part of the £80,000 transport contribution.

By 10 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and subject to the conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Committee.

The Chair noted that a site visit had been held on 7 February 2024 and the Area Team Leader, Michael Hammond, presented the report. Members asked a number of questions of clarity regarding various topics.

Litter

Members enquired as to how litter could be managed, in response to the concern over litter from Orchard Park Community Council’s response in the report, and if condition 24 could be amended to include a requirement to confirm details of litter management. Officers advised that such a change was acceptable and presented to Members that a criteria h “the management and control of litter” could be added to the condition.

Traffic management

In response to a Member question, officers clarified that drop-offs and deliveries to the building would be made to the rear of the site, with no dedicated space being provided for this at the front of the building. Members noted the concerns of Orchard Park Community Council, listed in the report, regarding parking and traffic flow and enquired as to if it would be possible to provide funding for double-yellow lines to be introduced, if parking became problematic. The Principal Transport Officer advised that the Heads of Terms for the Section 106 agreement could be amended to designate £5,000 of the £80,000 Transport Obligation towards the provision of double-yellow lines, if required.

The Principal Transport Officer advised the Committee that the Transport Assessment Team (Cambridgeshire County Council) did not expect overspill parking to occur as a result of the proposed development and that the proposed level of car parking provision was deemed to be acceptable. Member concerns were raised over the levels of parking provision and the shortfall of spaces compared to the parking provision standards laid out Policy TI/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In response to Member queries, the Principal Transport Officer provided details of the reasons behind the Transport Assessment Team’s conclusion that the proposal was acceptable:

·       The hotel element of the proposed development was likely to result in higher levels of parking, which was expected to be overnight parking more than daytime parking.

·       Occupants of the aparthotel element of the proposal were expected to be less likely to use private motor vehicles and thus require parking spaces.

·       Daytime parking was expected to occur at higher levels than overnight parking and predominantly serve non-accommodation facilities, such as the conference and leisure facilities.

·       The applicant had produced modelling on expected car parking, incorporating data from other local developments of a similar nature (nearby Travelodge and Premier Inn, similar development in Eddington).

·       Given the information provided, officers were satisfied that the different times of use and parking requirements for different elements of the proposal would lead to parking provision being sufficient and, as such, there was a low chance of overspill parking occurring on nearby streets.

·       With the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement in the District and the suggestion of allocating £5,000 of the S106 agreement, the Principal Transport Officer was content that, if overspill parking did occur, enforcement measures could be taken to mitigate harm.

Further discussion was held over the figures that had been used in the Transport Assessment Team’s analysis and the comparisons with similar nearby developments. Officers clarified that there was no dedicated coach parking proposed to be included in the development and coaches serving the site were expected to utilise existing bus routes and stops, or the turning head in Neal Drive which was expected to be used by delivery vehicles. Discussion was held over condition 19 (Travel Plan) and the scope for the inclusion of a monitoring and feedback mechanism. Officers advised that condition 19 could be amended to include wording that would require parking surveys to be undertaken to monitor parking in the proposed development, with monitoring reports being given to the Highway Authority to assess if there was need for the implementation of mitigation against overspill parking. Members were informed that this could be done by way of amending the existing condition or re-drafting the condition with a series of criteria. The Committee agreed that the re-drafting option was preferred.

Scale of development

Officers confirmed that the nearby Travelodge had a ridge height of 14.5m and the proposed development had a maximum ride height of 24.4m. Members noted that the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (adopted March 2011) set a maximum building height of 15m, which the proposal greatly exceeded, and asked officers to clarify the concerns of the Landscape Officer which were laid out in the report. Officers advised that it was agreed that two verified views would be assessed and, whilst the Landscape Officer objected to the proposal, the Urban Design Team held no objections. Officers informed the Committee that their view was aligned with the Urban Design Team’s comments and that the impact of the proposed development on the verified views had been mitigated enough for the proposal to be considered acceptable. Member comment was made that screening at the verified views relied on deciduous trees which would result in varied levels of screening due to seasonal variations.

Noise mitigation

In response to a Member question on noise mitigation to reduce the impact of the proposed development on neighbours post-occupation, officers advised that condition 31 dealt with the amenity of occupiers of the apart-hotel and hotel and did not relate to neighbour amenity. Members requested that a condition be added to require noise mitigation, through design and materials used in construction, that would protect neighbouring properties from unacceptable levels of noise from the proposed development post-occupation. Officers advised that the addition of such a condition would be acceptable.

Water provision

Members raised concerns over the response from Anglian Water and their comments that the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre, which the proposed development was in the catchment of, did not have capacity for foul water flows from the development site. Officers advised that Anglian Water was legally obliged to take foul water from the proposed development and that the granting of environmental permits related to waste water was separate to the planning process.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Colin Brown, and answered a number Member of questions. In response, the agent clarified that the applicant had engaged in a number of meetings with Orchard Park Community Council, leafleted nearby dwellings and put up a website for the development. The agent commented that engagement was limited by response levels and that the applicant intend to continue to engage with the Community Council if the proposal was granted permission. The agent advised that the details of public use of leisure facilities were not finalised and discussions would continue to be held with the community regarding this. Comment was made that there was no facility for family changing rooms provided in the indicative plans and the agent agreed to feedback to the applicant the Committee’s desire to see family changing rooms be included in the final internal layout.

Councillor Sunita Hansraj addressed the Committee as local Member and raised concerns over parking. In response to Member questions, Councillor Hansraj advised that she felt that the £5,000 allocated to double-yellow lines and Civil Parking Enforcement would help the matter somewhat but that there were not enough Enforcement Officers available to effectively manage parking in the area. Councillor Hansraj also advised that she felt that the nearby Travelodge was a different type of business with different parking requirements, as such it was not a perfect comparison to the proposal, and stated that parking related to the Travelodge site was causing some parking issues in Orchard Park.

In the debate, comment was made that a lot of effort had gone into the application and design of the proposal. Some Members felt that a number of concerns had been addressed by the responses of officers and the suggested changes to conditions. Concerns were still maintained over parking provision and whilst some Members felt that the proposed changes to conditions could mitigate harm and allay these concerns, some felt that the concerns over parking were sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal. The objection of the Landscape Officer and the height of the building exceeding the 15m laid out in the Orchard Park Supplementary Planning Document was discussed. Some Members expressed the view that the responses of officers had resolved this concern and that, if there was harm, it was outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, whilst others felt that the scale and massing was inappropriate and as such amounted to a reason for refusal. Comment was made that the response from Anglian Water was frustrating and regrettable, but it was noted that this was not a material consideration.

By affirmation, with an abstention from Councillor Dr Richard Williams, the Committee agreed to an amendment to the Heads of Terms to allocate £5,000 of the £80,000 Transport Obligation to the provision of double-yellow lines/other parking mitigation measures in the area around the proposed developments, and also to the following changes to conditions:

·       The addition of a criterion (h) in condition 24, requiring details of litter management.

·       Amendment to condition 19, to read as follows:

“Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. The Plan shall specify:

A)   The methods used to discourage the use of the private motor vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative sustainable travel arrangements such as public transport, car sharing, cycling and walking;

B)   How the car parking spaces are distributed and allocated to the users of the site;

C)   How the car parking within the site is to be managed and enforced so that it only occurs within designated vehicular parking bays/locations;

D)   How the proposed measures are to be published to potential users;

E)   How the provisions of the Plan will be monitored for compliance and confirmed with the Local Planning Authority including monitoring reports for up to five years following first occupation;

F)    The inclusion of a feedback mechanism to the Local Planning Authority, allowing for the alteration of working methods / management prescriptions, should the monitoring deem it necessary.

The Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan shall be implemented and monitored as approved upon the occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site in accordance with Policy TI/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

·       The addition of a new condition regarding material finish and noise, to read as below (with officers delegated authority to ensure that the environmental noise standard in bold below was up to date and amended if necessary):

“The design and installation of the finishes of the building and noise mitigation measures shall be such that, when in operation, the cumulative noise level LAeq arising from the proposed development, measured or predicated at 1m from the façade of any residential premises shall be a rating level of at least 5dB(A) below the background noise level LAF90. The measurement and/or prediction of the noise should be carried out in accordance with the methodology contained within BS 4142: 2014.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties in accordance with Policy HQ/1 and SC/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

By 10 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Henry Batchelor, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford and Heather Williams) votes to 1 (Councillor Dr Richard Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and completed of a Section 106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Amendment Sheet and the Committee.