The Council’s report of 2004 on Bradwell’s Court

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date: 20th October 2004

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Applic. No: C/04/0632 Agenda Item No. 3.2 Date Recvd: 16th June 2004 Officer: Toby Williams Ward: Market Site:

Bradwells Court, Cambridge, CB1 1NH

Proposal:

Comprehensive redevelopment providing units for purposes within Classes A1(retail) & A3(Food & drink); 15 residential apartments; the creation of new public spaces, including the re-opening of Christs Lane; associated highway works, servicing; and landscaping.

Applicant:

Ravenseft Properties Ltd C/o Turley Associates 20 Dering Street London -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.0

SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT

1.1

Bradwell’s Court was built in the early 1960’s and sits in the centre of Cambridge facing both Christ’s Pieces and St Andrew’s Street. The surrounding environment is busy and mainly commercial. The site comprises 21 relatively small retail units. An adopted public highway and definitive footpath run through its centre connecting St Andrew’s Street with the Bus Station and Christ’s Pieces. The shops form a rectangular open space within the core of the development.

1.2

The building incorporates a variety of flat and pitched roofs at different heights. The north-eastern elevation consists of large areas of glazing and wood panelling at first and second floor levels, with shopping units below. The south-eastern elevation is constructed mainly of brick with fewer openings and provides vehicular service/delivery access from the north-eastern corner of the site through the Bus Station. The access leads to an underground parking area. The south-western elevation consists of regularly spaced rectangular glazing and wood panelling at first floor level with shopping units below. The north-western elevation is constructed out of brick and is interspersed with numerous flues and first floor retail storage/office windows.

1.3

To the north-east of the building is Christ’s Pieces and Drummer Street Bus Station. At this point the building terminates on its north-eastern side in front of a partly paved and round-nosed landscaped area bound by railings. To the south-east of Bradwell’s Court is Emmanuel

Page 2

College, a grade II listed building, that is separated from the site by a substantial 3m high brick wall. To the south-west is St Andrew’s Street which incorporates an enlarged area of paving that, until recently, was interspersed with 5 semi-mature trees, various seats and cycle racks. Hobson’s Conduit (a listed structure) runs alongside the boundary of the site. To the north-west of the building is Christ’s College, a grade I listed building that is hard against Christ’s Lane. The lane provides rear access for Bradwell’s Court retail units and Christ’s College kitchens and is awash with commercial bins. 1.4

Bradwell’s Court is designated as a site for redevelopment within the Cambridge Local Plan (1996) and Cambridge Local Plan ‘Re-Deposit Draft’ (2004). ‘Bradwell’s Court – Planning and Design Brief’ was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in November 2002. A copy of the Brief is attached to this report.

1.5

The Cambridge Local Plan (1996) proposals map illustrates the site as falling within the City Centre boundary, Central Conservation Area, Historic Core and Central Area Office Restriction Zone. Bradwell’s Court is identified as primary shopping frontage.

1.6

The site is contained within the Controlled Parking Zone and a series of lime trees - that are protected by a tree preservation order - and low rise shrubbery cover the north-eastern part of the site. The site is not within the Environment Agency’s indicative floodplain.

2.0

THE PROPOSAL

2.1

The proposal seeks full planning permission for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site, providing units for purposes within Classes A1 (retail) and A3 (food and drink), residential accommodation comprising 15 flats, the creation of new public spaces including the reopening of Christ’s Lane to the public on a 24-hour basis, associated highway works, servicing and landscaping.

2.2

The application is accompanied by the following supporting information: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5 5: 6: 7: 8:

3.0

Design Statement Planning Statement (incorporating a Disability Access Statement and a Sustainability Statement) Transport Assessment Landscape Strategy Statement Environmental Noise Impact Statement Construction Statement Consultation Statement Archaeological Mitigation Statement Statement of Approach for Public Art Commissioning

SITE HISTORY

Page 3

REFERENCE C/04/0985/LB

C/04/0631/CAC 23317

DESCRIPTION Proposed Alterations to Christ’s College Wall facing Christ’s Lane incorporating landscaping, gates and public art. Demolition of Bradwell’s Court Erection of 16 two-storey shop units and 8 single storey shopping units with two floors of office space over

4.0

PUBLICITY

4.1

Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes • •

DEC Current

A/C A/C (1957)

Public Exhibition Guild Hall (23 June – 2 July 2004) Evening exhibition arranged for Residents’ Associations (30 June 2004)

Pre-Application Consultation • • • • •

Planning Workshop (March 2001) to inform Planning Brief Consultation on Draft Planning Brief (August 2002) Public Exhibition (September 2002) Presentation of draft proposals to Planning Committee (December 2002) Presentation of draft proposals to Planning Committee (May 2004) highlighting changes to the proposal.

4.2

Pre-application discussions have also taken place with Cambridgeshire County Council, English Heritage, Cambridgeshire Police, Conservation and Design Panel, Disability Consultative Panel, CABE, Christ’s College, Jesus College, Emmanuel College, Cambridge Preservation Society, Cambridge Society for the Blind and Partially Sighted and Christ’s Pieces Residents’ Association. A summary of feedback from these pre-application discussions is contained within the Consultation Statement accompanying the application.

5.0

POLICY

5.1

Central Government Advice

5.2

PPG1 General Policy and Principles (1997): Paragraph 40 states that Section 54A of the 1990 Act requires that applications for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Conversely, applications which are not in accordance with relevant policies in the plan should not be allowed unless material considerations justify a planning permission. Paragraph 64 emphasises that account should be taken as to whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities

Page 4

and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. The guidance emphasises the need to promote sustainable development, good design and mixed use schemes. 5.3

PPG3 Housing (2000): Paragraph 1 states that new housing and residential environments should be well designed and should make a significant contribution to promoting urban renaissance and improving the quality of life. The guidance seeks to encourage a better mix in the size, type and location of housing, giving priority to re-using previously developed land within urban areas, in sustainable locations and in an efficient manner. It seeks to reduce car dependence and promote good design in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people will choose to live.

5.4

PPG6 Town Centres and Retail Developments (1996): Sets out to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres, to focus development in locations that facilitate competition, to sustain an efficient and competitive retail sector and to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment services and leisure facilities to which people have easy access. In particular, the guidance encourages the promotion of good design, particularly urban design, in order to help improve the appearance of town centres.

5.5

PPG13 Transport (2001): This guidance seeks three main objectives: to promote more sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services, by public transport, walking and cycling, and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Paragraph 28 advises that new development should help to create places that connect with each other in a sustainable manner and provide the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

5.6

PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994): This guidance provides advice on the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment.

5.7

PPG16: Archaeology and Planning: Provides policy advice with regard to archaeological remains on land, and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside.

5.8

Draft PPS1 Creating Sustainable Communities (2004): Emphasises the importance of sustainable development, promoting proposals that seek to encourage the re-use of vacant or underused land.

5.9

Draft PPS6 Planning for Town Centres (2003): Confirms the role of planning to promote town centre developments, reflecting the sequential approach promoted by PPG6.

Page 5

5.10

Circular 1/97 - Planning Obligations: Accepts that planning obligations may enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be refused.

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 to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

5.12

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 P1/1 Approach to development P1/2 Environmental restrictions on development P1/3 Sustainable development in built development P3/1 Vitality and attractiveness of centres P3/2 Locating uses which attract large numbers of people P5/2 Re-using previously developed land and buildings P7/6 Historic built environment P8/1 Sustainable development – links between land use and transport P8/8 Encouraging walking and cycling P8/9 Provision of public rights of way P9/10 Retail provision - Cambridge Planning Obligation Related Policies P6/1 P8/2 P8/3 P9/8 P9/9

5.13

Development-related provision Implementing sustainable transport for new development Area transport plans Infrastructure provision Cambridge sub-region transport strategy

Cambridge Local Plan 1996 EO1 EO5 EO6 EO7

Pollution – noise, smell and air pollution Recycling – re-use and conversion of existing buildings Energy – energy saving and use of renewable energy sources Energy – energy and resource efficient development and means of transport EO12 Contaminated land NE16 Trees – trees of amenity value NE17 Trees – development and existing trees BE1 Excellence in urban design BE2 Respect for the character of the site and its surroundings BE3 New development – mix of uses BE4 New development – impact on the townscape or landscape of the surrounding area BE10 Commercial, industrial and retail developments – external environment BE11 Commercial, industrial and retail developments – design

Page 6

BE12 Commercial, industrial and retail developments – infill sites and alterations to existing buildings BE13 Access for people with disabilities – provision in non-domestic development. BE15 Design, public safety and crime BE17 The street scene – new shopfronts BE26 The street scene – bin stores, TV aerials, satellite dishes and other equipment BE32 Conservation areas - requirement of development to preserve or enhance BE35 Listed buildings – character and setting BE41 Archaeology – archaeological assessment and evaluation HO4 Sites potentially allocated for housing development RL24 Arts and entertainment – inclusion in substantial central area redevelopments SH1 The city centre – support and protection of its sub-regional shopping role SH7 The city centre – sites allocated primarily for shopping TR15 Pedestrians – pedestrian accessibility TR16 Pedestrians – improvement and extensions to the pedestrian network TR17 Cycling – cycle accessibility TR18 Cycling – cycle parking TR19 Cycling – improvement and extension to the cycling network TR22 Car parking – car parking provision TR23 Car parking – provision in non-residential developments in controlled parking zones TR24 Car parking – private non-residential developments TR27 Highways – impact of new development on the road network Planning Obligation Related Policies E08

Environmental Improvement: priorities for environmental improvement H07 Affordable Housing – negotiation from housing development proposals CS3 Community facilities – provision with new residential development CS9 Education – contribution from residential development to the provision of school places RL3 Open space – provision within new housing and other development RL4 Play space for children RL26 Arts and entertainment – works of art in new development TR2 Impact of development proposals upon transport systems TR3 Environmental impact of traffic generated by development 5.14

Cambridge Local Plan - Re-deposit Draft (approved by Full Council on 24 June 2004)

Page 7

6/5 5.15

Shopping Development in the city centre

Supplementary Planning Guidance Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief (2002): Sets out a vision to transform the site by: creating a distinctive mixed use development that responds to its setting; reopening Christ’s Lane as an attractive pedestrian link (of no less than 6m width); creating a townscape and architecture of the highest quality; exploiting the public transport links to the area and securing a car free development; and improving servicing arrangements. Cambridge City Council (2001) - Housing Development and Design Guide: Provides a framework for providing good quality development that respects its surroundings and the site constraints. Cambridge City Council (2004) - Car and Cycle Parking Standards: This provides revised planning guidance for the provision of car and cycle spaces for different types of development located within and outside the controlled parking zone. Cambridge City Council (1997) - Shopfront Design Guide: This guide aims to ensure that new and refurbished shopfronts fit into their context by drawing on local themes, styles and materials, creating attractive shopping environments that are easily accessible and where people want to spend their time and money. Cambridge City Council (2003) – Sustainable Development Guidelines: Highlights issues that should be considered when drawing up policies and development briefs, appraising sites and development proposals. The Guidelines identify opportunities for mitigation of the impacts of development and for delivering environmental enhancement, giving examples of how this has been achieved in successful projects. The Guidelines include practical ways of implementing the principles of sustainable development at all stages of the development process. Applicants for major developments will be asked to complete and submit a Sustainable Development Checklist and a Sustainability Statement to accompany their planning application, setting out the key sustainable development issues relevant to the development, and describing how they have complied with the Guidelines. Cambridge City Council (2004) – Planning Obligation Strategy: Sets out the Council’s requirements in respect of issues such as public open space, transport, public art, community facility provision, affordable housing, public realm improvements and educational needs for new developments.

Page 8

Cambridge City Council (2002) - Provision of Public Art as Part of New Development Schemes: Encourages the provision of art as part of new development proposals, setting applicable thresholds. Cambridge City Council (2002) – Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan: The purpose of the Plan is to identify new transport infrastructure and service provision that is needed to facilitate largescale development and to identify a fair and robust means of calculating how individual development sites in the area should contribute towards a fulfilment of that transport infrastructure. Cambridge City Council (2004) – Guidance for the Interpretation and Implementation of the Open Space Standards: Provides guidance for the interpretation and implementation of the City Council’s Open Space Standards. 6.0

CONSULTATIONS Head of Engineering (on behalf of the Highway Authority)

6.1

No Objection. The site contains areas of public highway and a definitive public footpath. These busy links must be maintained and their safe use by the public ensured during and after demolition. Temporary closure of the route would only be considered where necessary for public safety, where no alternative method of working is practicable and where a safe, equally convenient pedestrian route is provided. Recommends a condition to seek a method statement detailing a programme of works in the interests of public safety and several informatives relating to: planned highways works, temporary disabled parking provision in front of Bradwell’s Court, the suitability of contractors access arrangements through the Bus Station and the necessity for agreement with the Highway Authority or its agent, regarding construction works within the highway and the burden of costs. Cambridgeshire County Council (Transport)

6.2

No Objection. Advise that a contribution towards the Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan is required.

6.3

Whilst the servicing arrangements are not ideal, given the constraints and problems of the area, it is felt that this is a reasonable compromise. We welcome the fact that vehicles in excess of 7.5 tonnes will be banned during peak hours, however the applicants will need to be aware that there are no guarantees that the Transport Regulation Order can be delivered. The idea of using Variable Message Signalling is welcomed.

Page 9

Head of Environmental Health and Waste Strategy 6.4

This is a substantial development and the following environmental health issues will need to be considered and appropriately controlled to minimise disturbance to nearby residents at Emmanuel and Christ’s College and the future occupiers of the proposed residential units: 1. Demolition/Construction Noise and Vibration 2. Contaminated Land 3. Noise Issues 4. Air Quality 5. Odour Generation 6. Waste Provision Demolition / Construction Noise and Vibration

6.5

Due to the proposed timescales it is likely that the demolition and construction works will overlap with the Grand Arcade Development. With these two developments running concurrently there is the potential to cause considerable inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses, traffic arrangements and passers by. The “mace report” states that the success of the project will be the management of the appearance and public perception of the area during the demolition/construction process together with the careful highway management of construction vehicles and pedestrian movements.

6.6

Noise and vibration during the demolition and construction phases will need to be controlled to protect the amenity of neighbouring premises. There is a clear commitment to use the best practical means to minimise noise/vibration and general noise controls are outlined. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed to control the impact of noise and vibration during demolition and construction phases. Contaminated Land

6.7

A dry-cleaners formerly operated in Bradwell’s Court. The submitted plans indicate the presence of an electrical substation in the basement that is to be removed. Dry-cleaners use organic solvents during the cleaning process. The electrical substation may have contained electrical transformers and capacitors. Due to these historical uses, it is possible that this site may have ground contamination.

6.8

The possibility of contaminated land needs to be considered and the applicant should carry out a full desktop study and site walk over. If significant contamination of the site is suspected then further investigation/site assessment may need to be undertaken to establish the extent of contamination. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed.

Page 10

Noise Issues 6.9

This area has a high ambient noise level dominated by noise generated by road traffic on St Andrews St and vehicle movements associated with the Drummer Street Bus Station. I have concerns about the suitability of this site for residential units with bedrooms fronting both St Andrews St and Drummer Street Bus Station. However, as there are existing residential properties in the area, we have no objection in principle, providing conditions and section 106 agreements are considered to protect the amenity and health of residents.

6.10

Should the principle of development be acceptable, a suitable noise insulation scheme will be required for the residential units to protect the amenity of future residents.

6.11

Lift shafts and plant rooms are shown as being adjacent to living areas of some flats. There may also be external plant. It is likely that these would need to be insulated to protect the occupants of the proposed residential units and neighbouring premises against the unreasonable intrusion of noise. The proposed café/bar also has residential accommodation both directly above it and in the immediate vicinity. By the very nature of this unit, associated plant and equipment has the potential to give rise to high levels of noise, particularly if music is played. Adequate noise insulation will be required between the different floor uses. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed. Air Quality

6.12

This development is inside the City’s air quality management area (AQMA) which was declared earlier this year. Consideration should be given to protecting future residents of this development from exposure to high levels of air pollution and exhaust odours associated with the Bus Station. We are particularly concerned about the residential units on the Drummer Street Bus Station façade. In relation to the noise insulation of these units, it is likely that non-openable windows will be required, along with some form of forced ventilation. Due to the very high ambient noise levels and poor air quality, it is recommended that a ducted ventilation system which intakes on the quiet side of the building fronting Christ’s Lane is installed or air conditioning is provided. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed. Odour Generation

6.13

The plans do not detail the installation of any ventilation/fume extraction system for the proposed Retail (A1) and Food (A3) units. It is likely that the A3 unit will have some type of ventilation to discharge cooking odours. Unless odour is appropriately controlled it is highly likely that odour nuisance will be caused in the area and especially to the occupiers of the proposed residential units. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed.

Page 11

Waste Provision 6.14

There are two sources of waste associated with this proposed development, domestic and trade waste.

6.15

Trade waste arrangements need to be adequate having regard to the volume and nature of the waste generated and the storage capacity required, based on the frequency of collection and the size and type of waste container. Refuse storage and practical refuse collection arrangements should form part of good design for development. All parts of the development will require workable waste collection systems to include effective recycling.

6.16

Some refuse storage is detailed in the basement and a waste holding area is proposed on the ground floor. I am concerned about the waste storage provisions as it is stated that the area will also accommodate waste not only associated with the residential units, the retail and food units, but also waste associated with Christ’s College kitchens. The refuse trucks will need to be able to access the basement, easily collect the waste and recycling turn around and exit the area. It is the responsibility of the developer/agent to ensure that the system for waste collection is fully workable.

6.17

With regard to waste disposal, domestic buildings are required to have adequately sized storage facilities to be provided for refuse collection reasonably close to buildings having regard to storage capacity, design and siting.

6.18

The storage areas for the residential units appear inadequate and they are located on the third floor. However, I understand that there will be management arrangements in place to put receptacles out for collection. It is therefore unlikely that two 240 litre bins would actually fit into these stores and the applicant may need to reconsider the dimensions. A list of conditions and informatives are proposed. Environment Agency

6.19

The applicant must demonstrate that sufficient residual capacity exists within the system to accept any increased run off from the development. A ‘Grampian’ style condition, requesting details of surface water drainage is required. Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service

6.20

The Fire Authority is of the opinion that additional water supplies for fire fighting are not required.

Page 12

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer) 6.21

My main concerns relate to the area of open space between the new building, Christ’s Pieces and the re-opened Christ’s Lane. Christ’s Lane should be provided with column mounted white down-lighters to adoptable standard with a similar provision for the area of open space.

6.22

Consideration should also bee given to extending the CCTV network to cover these areas. This is particularly necessary given the recent concerns raised about crime levels in the adjacent Christ’s Pieces. Whilst natural supervision from a busy daytime economy can have a deterrent effect on criminal activity, the same does not necessarily apply at night time.

6.23

The idea of a 2m high wall to provide a barrier between the open space and the Bus Station needs to be reconsidered. It could act as a late night honey pot for anti-social behaviour and various crimes. The seating should be designed so as to avoid provision of makeshift beds for rough sleepers or vagrants. Communal entrances to the apartments and other private areas should benefit from some form of access control with internal passageways adequately lit. Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Cycle Theft Reduction)

6.24

I would like to see conditions attached to the application that at least double the amount of cycle parking offered in the open areas within the development boundary. Drummer Street and St Andrew’s Street areas are among the City’s hotspots for cycle theft. The existing cycle parking is always full during the day and wherever there are blank walls and railings, cycles are attached to them.

6.25

The retail area will attract lots of people arriving by cycle. Unless significant cycle parking is provided nearby then bikes will be left where they are not wanted and where they are not secure. I expect that large numbers of bikes will be left alongside the wall of Christ’s College right opposite the shops. In effect, it would become an unofficial cycle parking area and spoil the development.

6.26

Retail space should be used for a managed cycle park/bike shop. Access to any such bike shop should be convenient and the price for cycle parking should be low.

6.27

Park Street Cycle Park in Cambridge now attracts 100’s of cyclists. However, it is still not at full capacity because for many cyclists it is still too far from the places that they want to be. Bradwell’s Court offers the opportunity to create a secure cycle park exactly in the location that many cyclists would use.

Page 13

Cambridgeshire County Council (Education) 6.28

The County Council is concerned that additional housing development in this area will necessitate further investment in pre-school and life long learning facilities in the City. The County Council therefore request that a contribution of £13,740 is made to cater for the likely increase in educational demand. Cambridgeshire County Council (Archaeology)

6.29

Our records indicate that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential. Observations undertaken in conjunction with the construction of Bradwell’s Court in 1959 identified significant remains of medieval date. The desktop assessment confirms the archaeological sensitivity of the site, although it is currently not clear to what extent the construction of Bradwell’s Court will have damaged these remains.

6.30

We consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation and recommend that this work be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a negative condition in any planning consent. English Heritage

6.31

We do not wish to make any representations on this occasion. We recommend that the case should be determined in accordance with Government guidance, development plan policies and with the benefit of conservation advice locally. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)

6.32

We think that the scheme is well designed and we would be pleased to see this proposal built. We first commented on this scheme in September 2003 (copy enclosed). At that time we raised a number of issues relating to the public realm and architecture, which the architects have sought to address in the revised scheme. Conservation and Design Panel (Meeting of 6 July 2004)

6.33

Subsequent to the presentation of this scheme to Panel at their meetings of 7 January 2003 and 20 April 2004, a slightly amended scheme has been submitted as a planning application. Miss Neilson read out the architect’s letter describing how they had answered the Panel’s comments from their presentation. The main changes are to the Christ’s Pieces elevation with which Panel were much happier. However, Panel still had some reservations about the St Andrew’s Street elevation, which they felt would benefit from being bolder and less obviously commercial.

Page 14

Disability Consultative Panel (Meeting of 28 April 2004) 6.34

General satisfaction was expressed with the scheme.

6.35

The existing pedestrian/bus/cycle conflict would be improved in the Drummer Street area by this scheme. Christ’s Lane should be adequately lit and appropriate security measures taken. It was confirmed that a walkway would be provided for pedestrians to access Drummer Street whilst work is in progress. There should be a secure access to the residential properties at ground level.

6.36

The lift car is not deep enough. The lift should be provided with an alarm system with an integral induction loop as well as audio/visual signals. It should be fitted with a mirror on the rear wall and control panels need to contrast well with the surfaces to which they are fitted. If decking is used in the patio/garden areas the boards should be close fitting to prevent walking sticks becoming wedged. Cambridge City Council Access Officer

6.37

Part M of the Building Regulations states that disabled people should be able to visit premises. To hold a Blue Badge you should not be able to walk 100m without assistance. So if there is no site parking then disabled access by motor vehicle is prevented.

7.0

REPRESENTATIONS

7.1

Councillor Rosenstiel has commented on this application. The representation can be summarised as follows: - Concerned the new building will encroach on the open space in St Andrew’s Street. The loss of trees is inappropriate. The re-opening of Christ’s Lane should include a through cycle route. - Concerned that the applicants expect to remove the existing Bus Station ancillary facilities and place them on Christ's Pieces. This possibility was not raised in earlier consultations. It is wholly unacceptable and unreasonable for the applicants not to accommodate these facilities within their development and this should be an obvious requirement by the City Council in this location.

7.2

The owners/occupiers of the following addresses have made representations: 6 7 9 13 78 86

Golding Road Primrose Street Willow Walk Russell Court Sherbourne Close De Freville Avenue

Page 15

Jones Bootmaker, St Andrew’s Street 7.3

The representations can be summarised as follows: Architecture and Design - Concern raised relating to the proposed bland architecture. There should be some worthwhile modern architecture in the city. The proposal should be a source of inspiration to residents and visitors. An international competition should be organised. -The proposal appears anonymous and obtrusive, dominating Christ’s College next to it. St Andrew’s Street Frontage -The model gives substance, depth and flair to the impression conveyed in the newspaper. The existing frontage has interest due to the recess in building line, the open space and its pedestrian use, with each retail unit small and quite different from its neighbour. -The proposal brings the whole of the retail frontage forward, creating a blocked, closed in effect. The stepped effect of the proposal is too subtle, public space is lost and there is less potential for vitality and interest. A curved scheme into Christ’s Lane from St Andrew’s Street would be more appropriate. -It is disappointing to see the current area of benches and trees on St Andrew’s Street lost. There is no explanation as to why the trees have to be removed. Christ’s Lane Frontage - Christ’s Lane is likely to have the feeling of an alley, squeezed between two buildings. It is no wider than the current access, less direct, less safe and will not be covered. Other Issues -At present there are 20 shops in Bradwell’s Court. This will be reduced to 8 thereby reducing choice for customers. -Any works taking place on the Bradwell’s Court site until The Grand Arcade is finished will be overly disruptive and mean a loss of footfall for businesses. -It is a waste of money to redevelop Bradwell’s Court if Drummer Street Bus Station is not tackled at the same time. Cambridge must have an integrated transport system and this is a golden opportunity to achieve this outcome.

Page 16

-The size of the existing bus information kiosk is too small and any replacement should be larger and clearly display information. -Cambridge doesn’t need larger shops. -Ely and other towns outside Cambridge are far better to shop in and get around. Instead of improving Bradwell’s Court a new central Post Office is needed. -The display had inadequate information for the lay person. 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. Cambridge Cycling Campaign 7.4

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign has objected to the proposal on the following grounds: The City’s Cycle Parking Standards of May 2003 as they relate to Bradwell’s Court are clear and straightforward. They set out what are minimum requirements and there should be no provision for adjustments, compromises or alternative arrangements. Residential Requirement The number of cycle spaces does meet the 2003 standards albeit that access via the lift may be difficult unless the lifts and lift lobbies are appropriately designed. A1 and A3 Requirement The number of on-site cycle spaces is a fraction of the requirement and these are located in a relatively inaccessible location. The following points are relevant 1. Off-site cycle parking is not an option and is already urgently needed 2. Other new city centre developments, including the Grand Arcade, are providing large areas of on-site cycle parking. To permit the developers of Bradwell’s Court to provide so much less would be discriminatory. 3. The proposal involves the loss of existing car parking spaces and an increase in overall floor-space. Part of this space should be made available to the public for cycle parking generated by the development itself.

Page 17

St Andrew’s Street Frontage The open space reduction in this area is unacceptable. The proposed location of some of the cycle spaces in this area is unsatisfactory. In particular those next to the road will obstruct pedestrians and cyclists. Re-Opening of Christ’s Lane as a Pedestrian and Cycle Thoroughfare The proposal to re-open Christ’s Lane is supported. It is wrong that this makes no provision for a cycle lane. A segregated cycle way adjacent to Christ’s College Wall should be provided together with the lane width increased. There would be minimum conflict with pedestrians and servicing. It is a fact that cyclists on bikes take up less room than cycles being wheeled. Creation of a New Cycleway Around Christ’s Pieces The S106 requirements for the development of the site should include a new cycle way to be constructed linking St Andrew’s Street to Northern and Eastern Cambridge, following Milton’s Walk linking to Short Street. This would have minimal interference with the existing diagonal pedestrian paths that run through Christ’s Pieces and would reduce illegal cycling at present. This would overcome difficulties with plans for a westbound one-way system in Emmanuel Street with a contra-flow cycling facility. The new route would offer an attractive and peaceful ride through the parkland and out through the city centre. A letter from Sustrans supporting the proposal is enclosed. 8.0

ASSESSMENT

8.1

From the representations received and from my inspection of the site and the surroundings, I consider that the main issues are: 1: Principle of development 2: Character, appearance and design 3: Highway safety 4: Servicing Arrangements 5: Car Parking 6: Cycle parking 7: Residential amenity 8: Environmental Considerations 9: Public Safety 10: Third party representations 11: Disabled access 12: Sustainability 13: Archaeology 14: Planning Obligation Strategy

Page 18

8.2

Principle of Development

8.3

In my opinion, the principle of redeveloping Bradwell’s Court is established under Development Plan policy. The site is allocated primarily for redevelopment to provide shopping floorspace under Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy SH7. It is also identified as a site for potential mixed-use development to provide new residential units under policy HO4. In addition, the Council adopted as supplementary planning guidance ‘Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief’ in November 2002. The Brief is the guiding policy document for the redevelopment of the site and sets out a vision for its redevelopment.

8.4

In addition to the strong presumption in favour of the redevelopment of Bradwell’s Court, it is also a fact that the site is centrally located, sustainable and accessible. The redevelopment of the site will reinforce the vitality of the city centre and is the preferred location for shopping development in accordance with PPG6 guidance. The provision of new flats as part of the scheme also accords with the aim of building at least 65% of new residential development on previously used land as set out under Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policy P5/2.

8.5

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policy P9/10 states that there will be no further need or requirement for major subregional shopping provision in the Structure Plan period other than the 30,000 sq m already granted for Cambridge City. Any alternative provision should not exceed this figure and should be high quality and easily accessible. The policy does not preclude redevelopment of existing shops to improve the attractiveness of the centre and defines major sub-regional shopping provision as anything over 10,000 sq m. The proposal seeks approval for 7,855 sq m of gross A1/A3 floorspace. At present Bradwell’s Court provides 4,755 sq m of gross commercial space, so in effect there is only a net increase of 3,100 sq m. As such, the application complies with policy P9/10. Should Committee resolve to approve this application, it will be necessary for referral to be made to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Shopping Directive (1993).

8.6

In my opinion, the principle of the proposed re-development of Bradwell’s Court is acceptable. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P3/1, P3/2, P5/2 and P9/10, Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies HO4, SH1 and SH7, Cambridge Local Plan - Re-deposit Draft (2004) policy 6/5 and this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of ‘Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief’ (2002).

Page 19

8.7

Character, Appearance and Design Historical Form

8.8

Bradwell’s Court was formerly known as Bradwell’s Yard and consisted of a dense, mixed-use terrace that faced Christ’s Lane. Ordnance Survey maps and photographs show an attractive and traditionally scaled street frontage with a less organised arrangement of extensions and outbuildings to the rear. The urban form had existed since the 15th century and was typical of the many narrow streets, such as Rose Crescent, to be found in Cambridge. Existing Form and Failings

8.9

Bradwell’s Yard was redeveloped as Bradwell’s Court in the 1960’s. Its design is typical of its era, appearing utilitarian and uncompromisingly modern. The redevelopment turns its back on Christ’s Lane and at the time pulled the building line back on St Andrew’s Street frontage. A new pedestrian route was provided through its commercial centre.

8.10

Whilst at the time the 1960’s redevelopment of Bradwell’s Court was considered an example of best practice, it is now judged to fail to respond to its context and to under-utilise the site.

8.11

The fabric of Bradwell’s Court has now deteriorated and the roofscape is seen as bland and uninteresting. There are servicing difficulties associated with many of the shops and areas of pedestrian and vehicular conflict. Surfacing materials are poor quality and have deteriorated whilst the public footpath that runs through the site is bottlenecked at peak periods of the day.

8.12

Access through to the Grafton Centre is also unnecessarily awkward and St Andrew’s Street frontage is cluttered with an unorganised series of cycle racks. Most recently, the cycle racks together with a series of London Plane trees have been removed from St Andrew’s Street frontage, to facilitate servicing/infrastructure improvements for the Grand Arcade. Christ’s Lane is now only used for servicing and is occupied by wheelie bins and uninteresting blank facades with associated flues and vents. Principles of the Brief

8.13

The Brief for the site sets out a vision for its redevelopment, seeking to transform the site by: 1. Creating a distinctive mixed use development that responds to its setting in a Conservation Area and adjacent to listed buildings. 2. Re-opening Christ’s Lane as an attractive pedestrian link. 3. Creating townscape and architecture of the highest quality.

Page 20

4. Exploiting the excellent public transport links and securing car free development. 5. Improving servicing arrangements. 8.14

The Brief also requires certain design principles to be met with regard to the built form. The following text will examine the impact of the scheme on St Andrew’s Street, Christ’s Lane, Christ’s Pieces and Emmanuel College and will detail the proposed use of materials, proposed treatment and creation of the public realm and the roofscape. St Andrew’s Street Elevation

8.15

This elevation will be the most publicly visible side of the scheme and its architectural detailing, form and design are of paramount importance. The Planning Brief for the site states that St. Andrew’s Street building line should be substantially retained to ensure there is adequate space for pedestrians.

8.16

The building line at present is set back 5m from the Prudential building, apart from Tammy’s Shop that juts forward. At ground floor level the proposed building line is set back 5m from the Prudential Building, apart from a section measuring 10m in length that comes forward in line with the Prudential building akin to the existing layout. As such, the building line is largely retained for the majority of its width and the existing space for pedestrians along this frontage is safeguarded.

8.17

In terms of the proposed architectural detailing and design, the scheme seeks approval for a strongly detailed and stepped frontage that is split into a series of three bays, the central bay being covered. All of the windows are tall and long and there is a balanced mixture in the use of natural stone and glass. The design adopted is intrinsically modern and sleek and the stepped vertical emphasis allows shadow to be cast across its façade. The height along this frontage is also increased. Bradwell’s Court is presently 7.2m high. The proposal seeks to increase the frontage height to 11.4m. The increase in height reflects the scale of the Prudential Building adjacent. The building stops short of the existing gap between Bradwell’s Court and Christ’s College to provide a widened entrance of over 7m into Christ’s Lane. The foreshortening eases the relationship in scale with Christ’s College whilst at the same time opens up views of Christ’s attractive gable window. The roofscape, which I will examine in closer detail later, is stepped back from the frontage facing St Andrew’s Street. I consider that it will be relatively inconspicuous it terms of its gradual slope and form.

8.18

I consider that the scheme will emphasise the verticality and narrow plot widths of traditional buildings in the vicinity, whilst also providing an interesting and modern approach to the site. The use of high quality materials and the increase in height will better reflect the importance of the site as a central shopping and access point within the centre of

Page 21

Cambridge, whilst the building alignment ensures the pedestrian space in front of the building is safeguarded and a sympathetic relationship with Christ’s College is secured. 8.19

In my opinion the character, appearance and design of this elevation is satisfactory and the guiding principles of the Planning Brief for the site are met. Christ’s Lane

8.20

The requirements of the Brief in respect of Christ’s Lane are to re-open it as a pedestrian route, achieve at least a 6m width, to prevent its use by vehicles, to surface and light it to adoptable standards and to ensure that it is covered by the existing CCTV system.

8.21

In my opinion, the proposal adequately meets or can meet all of these criteria. The scheme shows Christ's Lane widened to between 6-8m along its length and bollards are proposed at either end to prevent vehicular access. The width increases at both of its entrances and as such attractively opens up views of the lane and the new façade of the proposal.

8.22

Proposed level and drainage details are to an adoptable standard and there is also agreement from the applicants to provide CCTV to cover the lane. No lighting details have been submitted for approval but I envisage that this detail can be adequately secured by way of condition.

8.23

I am also satisfied with the design approach chosen for the treatment of the building facing Christ’s Lane. The retail frontage of St Andrew’s Street is carried down the lane ensuring that this is not just a pedestrian footpath but an active and enlivened shopping area with access to at least seven A1/A3 units and all of the new flats. The architect in this case has chosen to stagger the façade and to vertically break up its length with a series of floating display windows orientated towards St Andrew’s Street. Windows are slightly canted and a parapet wall will allow high rise planting. The overall impression is of an attractive, varied and vertically articulated elevation that is most easily appreciated by looking at the models on display.

8.24

The treatment of Christ’s College wall is subject to a separate application for listed building consent. To enable the development to proceed, internal alterations to the layout of Christ’s College are also required and again will be subject to an application for listed building consent. The basic principle for the improvement of the appearance of the wall is to attach a tensioned wire mesh along its length and grow climbing plants from a specifically designed planting trench up it, thereby softening and greening its appearance. The concept is to continue the feeling of a landscaped walk from Christ’s Pieces down Christ’s Lane and into the city centre. A strategy for Public Art will also

Page 22

be directed at the appearance of the wall and will particularly examine opportunities for ‘re-inventing’ the appearance of a large kitchen flue that is unable to be removed. I am confident that these proposed works will contribute positively to the appearance of Christ’s Lane. Christ’s Pieces Elevation 8.25

The Brief is less specific concerning the treatment of Christ’s Pieces elevation, stating only that the maximum building height should not exceed the ridge height on the gable of the North Court. This elevation has also been subject to change following comments received from this Council’s Conservation and Design Panel, who are now satisfied with the changes.

8.26

The approach taken on this elevation is particularly bold in nature. A unit that is likely to be in coffee shop/café style operation faces Christ’s Pieces on this frontage and extends onto a heavily glazed first floor. The effect is to visually connect the building’s interior with the space outside and to create an attractive seating area with views at first floor level. There is also space allocated for outside seating and it is envisaged that this would help to enliven the space, providing an attractive and relaxing atmosphere for visitors. Directly above the coffee shop/café is a series of flats that look directly over Christ’s Pieces. The frontage height of the building, delineated by the height of the flats on this elevation, is 12.4m and as such is lower in height than the gable of the North Court of Emmanuel College.

8.27

Stepped slightly away from the building line along this frontage are the proposed loading bays and servicing accesses for the site. I do not consider that these elements will play a significant visual role in ones experience of the site, having been visibly minimised in terms of appreciation from the new public square.

8.28

Overall, I consider this elevation to be a bold and interestingly designed piece of modern architecture that will draw people into its space and create a lively and inviting environment. Emmanuel College Elevation

8.29

This is perhaps the least impressive of all the elevations as it effectively incorporates the backs of most of the retail units that face the service yard of Emmanuel College. The design incorporates a series of angled brick louvres that will cast shadow during the day and emphasise the curved nature of the elevation. The listed brick wall will be maintained and the height is recessed back towards the centre of the building. I am satisfied, given the location of this elevation and its relationship to Emmanuel College, that it is adequately detailed and would respect the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

Page 23

Building Materials 8.30

The Brief for the site seeks to secure a range of materials that are in keeping with the surroundings. On both Christ’s Pieces elevation and St Andrew’s Street natural stone is proposed, whilst the side elevations are to be a lightly coloured brick, broken up with stone clad elements where the floating shop windows project into Christ’s Lane. The roofing is proposed to be zinc. Notwithstanding the necessity to approve any materials by way of samples on site, I consider that in principle the mix and type of materials is appropriate to the locality and will reflect the pallete of materials locally. The Public Realm

8.31

There are three principal areas of public realm proposed as part of this scheme: St Andrew’s Street frontage, Christ’s Lane and Christ’s Pieces Square. A landscaping scheme has been submitted for approval in respect of all three areas and it is crucial to ensure that the relationship between these spaces, the proposed building and the surroundings is satisfactory.

8.32

All three areas are proposed to be surfaced with York Stone arranged in three different sizes. St Andrew’s Street frontage incorporates new cycle parking racks and seating, whilst Christ’s Pieces retains an existing lime tree, provides large areas of ‘boat’ seating with an array of lights set into the paving. The plans indicate the positioning of a new bus kiosk/information centre that encloses the square and separates off the Bus Station manoeuvring area. Access between Christ’s Pieces, the Bus Station and Bradwell’s Court is opened up and improved.

8.33

Whilst some concern has been raised regarding the proposed new bus kiosk/information centre in front of the existing building line on Christ’s Pieces, I do not share these sentiments. The provision of the building (to be secured through a S106 agreement) will ensure the enclosure of the newly created public square and visually separate the bus turning area. It will be necessary to remove low-rise shrubbery and railings surrounding one of the existing lime trees (which is to be retained) and to landscape the square. This work is essential in meeting the aspirations of the Planning Brief in allowing free flow of pedestrians between Christ’s Lane, the Grafton Centre and the Bus Station. In this respect, I consider that there will be a greater interaction and sense of relationship between all three primary routes within this space, eliminating the current awkwardness and resulting in a mutually beneficial interrelationship and attractive space for passers by.

8.34

Christ’s Lane will also incorporate landscaping down the College wall and all three areas are contenders for a public art strategy that will improve the surroundings.

Page 24

8.35

In principle, I am satisfied with the proposed landscaping treatment of all three areas. However, any approval will require a closer examination of the layout, functioning and detailed design of the spaces, specifically in relation to planned works to upgrade St Andrew’s Street in light of the Grand Arcade development and the location and form of seating/cycling parking. The overall strategy should be to secure a high quality, interesting and co-ordinated approach to these three public areas and I am confident that the guiding principles of the Brief will be met. Roofscape

8.36

The roofscape of the proposal reflects the staggered nature of the building’s footprint and is set back on gentle inclines at second and third floor levels. I do not consider that the form of the roofing will be obtrusive. This helps soften the impact of the proposal within its setting and together with the use of a zinc as a proposed material the roofscape will appear attractive and interesting. Conclusion

8.37

In my opinion, the character, appearance and design of the scheme reflects the guiding principles of the adopted Planning Brief for the site. The proposal is a distinctive mixed use design that relates well to its setting within the Conservation Area and adjacent to several Listed Buildings. Furthermore, it seeks to attractively re-open Christ’s Lane as a main pedestrian link within the town centre. All of the publicly accessible frontages are active and the scheme adequately protects existing building lines whilst also seeks to improve the adjoining public realm.

8.38

As such, I consider that the proposal is compliant with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P1/3 and P7/6, Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies BE1, BE2, BE3, BE4, BE10, BE12, BE17, BE32 and BE35 and this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of the Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief (2002).

8.39

Highway Safety

8.40

The proposed scheme is car free in respect of both provision for residents and employees and as such no objection has been raised by the Head of Engineering (on behalf of the Highway Authority) in relation to highway safety. Various conditions relating to the public highway and the definitive public footpath are recommended. The suitability of contractor’s access arrangements through the Bus Station and the necessity for agreement with the Highway Authority or its agent, regarding construction works within the highway and the burden of costs are covered. Subject to the imposition of conditions to cover these various points, I consider that highway safety would not be

Page 25

compromised and the proposal is in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policy P8/1 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy TR27. 8.41

Servicing Arrangements

8.42

Existing servicing arrangements for Bradwell’s Court are poor. There is currently only one delivery bay for the site. This is accessed through the Bus Station and acts, in part, for delivery to Christ’s College that also utilises the front of Bradwell’s Court for smaller service van delivery. The provision of only one bay has caused problems such as the blocking of entrances to colleges, the car park and the obstruction of manoeuvring buses. Conflict between delivery vehicles and pedestrians also occurs with people dangerously walking through the Bus Station manoeuvring area or becoming obstructed on their walk through to the Grafton Centre. The existing servicing arrangements are clearly unsatisfactory.

8.43

The proposal seeks to improve servicing to the site. Two delivery bays capable of accommodating 11m and 13m vehicles are proposed. The re-opening of Christ’s Lane has meant that the pedestrian desire line has moved away from the service delivery area for Christ’s College. The applicant also proposes a 7.5 tonne weight limit during peak hours of 0730-0930 and 1630-1830 to avoid conflict with buses and, to limit delivery times to Christ’s College via the external delivery parking bay to before 11am only. After this time the delivery bay is to become part of the wider public space and will be gated off. It is proposed to enforce these arrangements through the use of a Traffic Regulation Order. In addition, variable message signalling outside the Bus Station is cited as a method of improving access for buses and service delivery vehicles.

8.44

The Planning Brief for the site includes an aspiration to improve servicing arrangements. Cambridgeshire County Council (Transport) has raised no objection to the proposal in this respect, although they have highlighted the fact that there is no guarantee that the Transport Regulation Order can be delivered. As such, it will be pertinent to control the timing of servicing arrangements via a suitably worded planning condition on any permission.

8.45

Given the constraints of the site and the servicing proposals under consideration, I consider that the scheme accords with the guiding principles of this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of the ‘Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief’ (2002). Car Parking

8.46

The site is contained within the Controlled Parking Zone. Due to the nature of the transport links available in this location, the Planning Brief for the site envisages a car free development. This Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of ‘Car and Cycle

Page 26

Parking Standards’ (2004) supports car free proposals in such circumstances and this stance is encouraged under PPG13 guidance. 8.47

In my opinion, the proposal is compliant the adopted planning policy framework for the site.

8.48

Cycle Parking

8.49

The existing site provides no employee retail cycle parking spaces. Until recently, 52 cycle spaces on St Andrew’s Street frontage were provided, but have since been removed following the erection of a compound in front of Bradwell’s Court.

8.50

The proposed plans show a secure basement area dedicated to providing 24 employee retail cycle parking spaces. At ground floor level 54 spaces on St Andrew’s Street frontage are proposed. Dedicated and secure storage for 30 cycles is provided at balcony level for the residential flats.

8.51

This Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of ‘Car and Cycle Parking Standards’ (2004) indicates that a commercial development of this size and make-up should provide 145 cycle spaces. One space per bedroom should also be provided for the residential units, equating to 29 spaces.

8.52

As such, whilst the proposed scheme provides a suitable level of provision for the residential element, it falls short of the newly adopted standards for commercial provision by 67 spaces.

8.53

The Planning Brief for the site specifically details the expected level of provision as part of the redevelopment. This states that cycle parking should be provided on St Andrew’s Street and secure provision should be made for worker’s cycle parking and for the residential units within the development in accordance with the Council’s standards. The Brief states that cycle parking will not be acceptable along Christ’s Lane and that overall there should be no loss of cycle parking in the vicinity of the development. The Brief therefore requires a lesser number of cycle parking spaces than the newly adopted standards.

8.54

I am of the view that there are specific constraints associated with this site that justify the proposed level of cycle provision in accordance with the Brief and not in accordance with the newly adopted standards. The constraints relate primarily to the tightness and positioning of the site in this central area and can be summarised as follows: 1.

The proposed increased width of Christ’s Lane together with the widened mouth for pedestrians at either end has, whilst enabling a pedestrian friendly environment, constrained the ground floor space available for retail use.

Page 27

2.

The Brief specifically precludes the use of Christ’s Lane for cycle parking.

3.

The need to safeguard the building line on St Andrew’s Street, to protect the pedestrian space in front of it, limits the footprint available to provide additional spaces.

4.

The existing space dedicated to cycle parking on St Andrew’s Street was, until recently, cluttered with cycle parking. Whilst the cycle parking spaces on this frontage will be re-organised and the number of spaces marginally increased, a significant increase in cycling provision here would compromise pedestrian flow and detract from the appearance of the site.

5.

Utilising the public square facing Christ’s Pieces for cycle parking would not be appropriate given its use for seating, as a corridor for pedestrian access to the Bus Station and the Grafton Centre and the lack of a dedicated cycle lane in this area.

6.

The developers have examined the scope to provide additional parking for cycles at a lower ground level but this has not proved financially viable.

7.

There is a clear vision set out by the Brief to create an active and interesting shopping environment in this location that is pedestrian friendly. This is the overarching improvement associated with the proposal and I do not consider that it would be reasonable to compromise this aspiration by turning over a significant area of retail space for cycle storage.

8.55

Notwithstanding the constraints of the site, the applicants have indicated their willingness to contribute towards the improvement of offsite cycling facilities. This Council’s Cycling Officer has identified potential sites for improvement, and the level of contribution has been agreed. In addition, the chosen spacing and type of rack (Sheffield Hoop) in front of St Andrew’s Street could be improved and more cycle spaces provided in the form of the high capacity racks suggested in the adopted standards. I consider that it will be necessary in the relation to any such provision in this area to condition the precise design and location of the racks to ensure the most appropriate layout.

8.56

In my opinion, the standard of cycling provision envisaged by the Brief is the guiding policy document for the redevelopment of the site and the proposal clearly meets its expectations. I do not consider that a refusal could be justified on the grounds of inadequate provision, even given the reasons as set out by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Cycle Theft Reduction) unit.

Page 28

Additional Cycling Issues 8.57

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign also argue for the re-opening of Christ’s Lane as a pedestrian and cycle thoroughfare and the creation of a new integrated cycleway around Christ’s Pieces.

8.58

I consider that the provision of a cycle way along Christ’s Lane would compromise the quality of the pedestrian environment that the scheme is seeking to create and is contrary to the aspirations of the Planning Brief. In my opinion, the provision of a new, integrated cycle way through Christ’s Pieces is beyond the remit of the Planning Brief and that it would be unreasonable to expect the developers to secure such provision.

8.59

Whilst I sympathise with the envisaged problem of people unofficially parking cycles down Christ’s Lane, in my opinion this is an issue that will have to be appropriately managed by all parties to ensure its proper functioning.

8.60

I have considered all other issues raised by various parties in respect of the provision of cycle parking as part of this development, but none have lead me to conclude that a refusal could be justified on the grounds of inadequate cycle parking provision.

8.61

Residential Amenity

8.62

The scheme incorporates 15 flats at second and third floor levels of the development. The mix comprises 14 two bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom flat. The flats are accessed via a secure doorway from Christ’s Lane. A suitably sized lift, to accommodate disabled persons and bikes is provided at ground floor level.

8.63

At second floor level, there is a landscaped balcony with secure cycling parking underneath that provides a walkway access for all of the units. Most of the flats have semi-private roof top garden space and some have balconies. All of the flats have access to a landscaped communal courtyard. The roof top landscaping includes raised planters for trees and shrub planting, hedging, timber decking and York stone paving that will create an interestingly landscaped and quality residential environment.

8.64

Given the constraints of the site, the level of space afforded to the flats is generous and the rooftop gardens will positively contribute towards the amenity of the residents. In my opinion, the proposal accords with this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of the ‘Housing Development and Design Guide’ (2001).

Page 29

8.65

Environmental Considerations

8.66

This Council’s Head of Environmental Health and Waste Strategy has identified the following environmental issues that need to be considered as part of this proposal. 1: Demolition/Construction Noise and Vibration 2. Contaminated Land 3. Noise Issues 4. Air Quality 5. Odour Impact 6. Waste

8.67

Conditions and informatives are proposed for each concern that is raised to ensure environmental considerations are appropriately controlled. Given that the principle of the development is considered acceptable, it will be appropriate to seek to condition for approval those matters that can be reasonably controlled.

8.68

With particular regard to waste storage provision, it has been necessary to include storage space for Christ’s College kitchens in the scheme to avoid current problems. The temporary storage areas for domestic waste at 2nd floor level will need to be justified and form part of a comprehensive management statement as to how waste is to be handled on this constrained site. Overall, however, I envisage that the rationalisation of the waste storage space into one area will secure a quality environment for pedestrians and ensure existing collection arrangements are more practical.

8.69

Subject to appropriate conditions, in my opinion the scheme is acceptable and in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies EO1, EO12, BE2 and BE26.

8.70

Public Safety

8.71

Cambridgeshire Constabulary has raised concerns relating to the area of open space between the new building, Christ’s Pieces and the reopened Christ’s Lane. It is stated that this space should be appropriately lit and covered with CCTV, avoiding the provision of makeshift beds for rough sleepers.

8.72

I agree entirely with the concerns raised. Any approval will be subject to a comprehensive lighting strategy. The applicants have agreed as part of a S106 agreement, to contribute towards the provision of an additional CCTV camera that would overlook both the public square and Christ’s Lane. All street furniture will be subject to detailed approval to avoid unwanted uses such as beds for rough sleepers and makeshift skateboard ramps. A secure and lighted access for the residents will form part of the scheme.

Page 30

8.73

The applicants initially proposed to close Christ’s Lane between 1am and 5am in the morning. This was to coincide with the closure of the Bus Station and referred to concerns expressed by Christ’s College relating to possible crime.

8.74

However, the scheme proposes the lane to be fully lit, widened and covered by CCTV. Student rooms are also to be moved away from ground floor windows facing Christ’s Lane. Given the nature of the improvements in the overall appearance, accessibility and functionality of the lane, I am very much in favour of its 24-hour opening. I would hope that it would provide a valuable, attractive and safe through-route for members of the public at all times of day and night. As such, it is my opinion that it should, in the first place, be a fundamental aspiration of the Council to secure a fully accessible re-opened Christ’s Lane, thereby replicating the current access.

8.75

Christ's College has now acknowledged these aspirations and has not raised any objection to the opening up of Christ's Lane on a 24-hour basis provided that there is an opportunity for review on security grounds. As such, I consider that it will be necessary to secure 24-hour provision as part of a suitably worded and flexible planning condition on any permission for this site.

8.76

Aside from any such condition, it is my understanding that a Walkways Agreement will also form a requirement of the redevelopment of this site, which would have to be agreed with the County Council. This reflects the necessity to ensure passage by the public from Drummer Street to St Andrew’s Street following any possible stopping-up of the public highway. The stopping-up would be carried out under Planning Authority powers, formerly advertised and any objections would lead to a formal Inquiry.

8.77

Third Party Representations

8.78

I have already discussed the merits of the scheme in terms of the proposed architecture and design and its various frontages to St Andrew’s Street and Christ’s Lane. I am of the opinion that the proposal put forward is a high quality design that respects the site and its constraints and would significantly improve the appearance of the area. Christ’s Lane is in fact widened and its width reflects those of other pedestrian through routes within the City. I also recognise the fact that the number of shops in Bradwell’s Court will be reduced. However, the size of the units is a commercial decision made by the applicants in response to market circumstances and is not a significant material consideration.

8.79

Whilst I sympathise with the existing and likely disruption to be caused by the redevelopment of this site in such close proximity to the Grand Arcade, I consider that it would be unreasonable to delay its implementation and that it is in the interests of Cambridge as a whole

Page 31

to complete all such works as expediently as possible should approval be forthcoming. 8.80

Lastly, it has been suggested that any redevelopment of Bradwell’s Court should not go ahead without the comprehensive redevelopment of the Bus Station. This aspiration is clearly beyond the remit of the Planning Brief and it would be wholly unreasonable to place such a burden on the applicants.

8.81

Disabled Access

8.82

A Disability Access Statement accompanies the application and states that the proposal aims to deliver a development that is accessible for all. All of the public spaces will be easily navigable by wheelchair in accordance with adoptable highway standards and the width of Christ’s Lane will ensure freedom of movement. The main corridors of travel avoid the use of steps and are dealt with by gradients that are as shallow as possible.

8.83

In order to aid the visually impaired, during the detailed design development of the spaces, the applicants state that they will consider appropriate levels of contrast and texture in the finished design of features in the external works, thresholds and freestanding columns around the building.

8.84

All of the retail units have level access from the streets and provision is made within the commercial units for 13 person capacity lifts to aid wheelchair access. Staircases will be proportioned to aid movement by the ambulant disabled and a Tenant’s Handbook will be produced that will place an obligation on tenants for their Fit-Out design to address issues of accessibility.

8.85

The residential access is to be gained from Christ’s Lane and will be from a level threshold. Adequate lighting (to be secured by condition), CCTV and access control will provide security for residents. Following advice received from the Disability Panel, the size of the residential lift has been increased to a 17-person capacity design, which will allow a wheelchair user and accompanying individual to turn around within it. An informative will be appended to any permission to ensure the applicants understand the design requirements suggested by the Panel to incorporate an alarm system, induction loop, audio & visual signals, a mirror and contrasting control panels.

8.86

All of the residential units are accessed via a covered level threshold and all external spaces are accessible from entry level. Internally, the layout of the residential units are designed to allow easy movement of wheelchairs and the location of the staircases provides for enough space to install chair lifts if required.

Page 32

8.87

In my view, the pre-application discussions with this Council’s Disability Panel has lead to a scheme that adequately considers the issues surrounding disabled access. The proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy BE13.

8.88

Sustainability

8.89

The applicants have completed the Sustainable Development Checklist as required by supplementary planning guidance. The roof gardens and the landscaping of Christ’s College wall will ensure that the impact of the development is softened and greened. The orientation of the residential units seeks to maximise solar gain and the layouts are open and attractive.

8.90

Whilst no details have been provided, the applicants intend to use sustainable drainage principles and water saving appliances in the detailed design of the building. Provision will also be made for dedicated storage areas for waste and any permission will ensure that an appropriate strategy for its storage and collection is agreed.

8.91

The scheme secures a re-opened Christ’s Lane and creates a pedestrian friendly environment. It increases the existing total number of cycling spaces on the site and street frontages. Not only is the development car free, but also ideally located in a central and highly accessible location, is mixed use and will aid pedestrian permeability through the town centre.

8.92

The applicants also state that they will select materials with low environmental impact at the construction stage to achieve Building Research Establishment targets. This will include local sourcing and the use of sustainable supplies such as locally recycled aggregate materials and timber from sustainable forestry.

8.93

I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies EO6 and EO7 and this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of the ‘Sustainable Development Guidelines’ (2003).

8.94

Archaeological Implications

8.95

Cambridge University Archaeological Unit undertook an independent Archaeological Desktop Study in October 2002. This accompanies the planning application as supporting documentation. The assessment confirms the archaeological sensitivity of the site, although it is not clear to what extent the construction of Bradwell’s Court in the early 60’s will have damaged these remains.

8.96

As such, the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation to be secured through the inclusion of a negative condition in any planning consent. I consider that the proposal is

Page 33

compliant with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P1/2 and P7/6, Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy BE41 and PPG16 advice (para.30). 8.97

Planning Obligation Strategy

8.98

The Planning Obligation Strategy (2004) provides a framework for expenditure of financial contributions collected through planning obligations. The applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a S106 planning obligation in accordance with the requirements of the Strategy. The proposed development triggers the requirement for the following community infrastructure: Open Space

8.99

The Planning Obligation strategy requires that all new residential developments contribute to the provision or improvement of public open space, either through provision on site as part of the development or through a financial contribution for use across the city.

8.100 The proposed development requires a contribution to be made towards open space comprising formal open space, informal open space and children’s play areas and the contributions required are as follows: Formal open space:

£10,620

Informal open space:

£9,027

Play space:

£11,172

I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies RL3 and RL4. Community Development 8.101 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2004) requires that all new residential developments contribute to community development facilities, programmes and projects. 8.102 The proposed development requires a contribution of £16,275 to be made towards community development. 8.103 I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy CS3.

Page 34

Education 8.104 The County Council have confirmed that there is insufficient capacity to cater for the increase in population that will be generated by the development. A commuted payment is therefore required towards preschool provision and life-long learning facilities. The total contribution sought equates to £13,740 and has been calculated as follows: Pre-school education:

£11,340

Life-long learning:

£2,400

8.105 I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy CS9. Transport 8.106 The site lies within the Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan where contributions towards catering for additional trips generated by proposed development are sought where 50 or more (all mode) trips on a daily basis are likely to be generated. The contribution per trip equates to £369. 8.107 The Highway Authority has assessed the proposal and determined that a contribution of £156,640.50 is required towards the Area Transport Plan based on an increase of 424.5 trips. Discussions are on-going as to whether it will be appropriate in this case to count the contribution being made for the new bus kiosk/ticket office against this figure. 8.108 Subject to agreement in this respect, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1, P8/2, P8/3, P9/8 and P9/9 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies TR2 and TR3. Bus Kiosk 8.109 The Planning Brief states that a S106 contribution is likely to be sought for the provision of a ticket office for the bus station. The applicants have set aside a figure of £60,000 for the provision of a new ticket office/bus kiosk and are currently in negotiations with the County Council and bus operators with a view to securing additional funds for a high quality building. It is likely that a planning application will be submitted in the near future and I consider that it is essential that this infrastructure provision be secured through the S106.

Page 35

Public Realm 8.110 The site lies within the city centre area where contributions for the public realm are sought for developments or redevelopments where 50 or more (all mode) trips on a daily basis are likely to be generated. The contribution per trip equates to £310. Based on an increase of 424.5 new trips a contribution - or works in kind to the public realm of an equivalent value - of £131,595 is required. The applicants have already indicated that the cost of extensive landscaping and surfacing to provide the public square, to re-open Christ’s Lane and to re-surface and landscape St Andrew’s Street frontage is likely to significantly exceed the contribution required. A detailed breakdown of the hard landscaping costs will be required from the applicants to justify that works in kind meet the equivalent value of £131,595. 8.111 Subject to agreement on this last point, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies E08 and BE15. Public Realm: Community Safety 8.112 The proposed development requires a contribution to be made towards the provision and improvement of the existing CCTV network. The draft cost of providing one new camera together with associated cabling and re-location costs is £22,500. The applicants have agreed in principle to this provision. Public Art 8.113 The proposed development requires a contribution to be made towards the provision of public art. A contribution is sought for a value equal to 1% of the construction costs of the project, either to be provided as a commuted sum, or preferably as on-site provision to an equivalent value. The applicants are committed to this provision and have submitted a comprehensive statement of approach for Public Art Commissioning. 8.114 I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and 9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policy RL26. Cycle Parking 8.115 Notwithstanding the fact that the provision of cycle parking on this site accords with the requirements of the Planning Brief, the applicants have indicated their willingness to contribute to the improvement of cycle racks within the vicinity of the development. A contribution of £3000 to secure these improvements has been agreed by the applicants.

Page 36

9.0 RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to no objection being raised from the Secretary of state, the satisfactory completion of the S106 agreement by 1 December 2004 and subject to the following conditions: 1

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a. Contractor’s access arrangements for vehicles, plant and personnel. a. Contractor’s site storage area/compound. b. The means of moving, storing and stacking all building materials, plant and equipment around and adjacent to the site. c. The arrangements for parking of contractor’s vehicles and contractor’s personnel vehicles. d. Measures to protect the public and ensure public safety. e. Haulage routes. f. A strategic plan for ensuring contractor’s arrangement’s are coordinated with the construction of the Grand Arcade. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a comprehensive construction programme identifying each and every phase of the development and confirming construction activities to be undertaken in each phase and a timetable for their execution shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 37

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5). 4

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a report regarding the demolition/construction noise and vibration impact associated with this development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall be in accordance with the provisions of BS 5228 (1997). Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no construction work or demolition shall be carried out, or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0730 to 1800 Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1300 on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no collection or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0700 to 1900 Monday – Saturday and no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the wheel washing and dust suppression provisions shall be undertaken in accordance with an environmental management plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 38

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5). 8

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of site lighting during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, an investigation and assessment shall be undertaken to identify the extent of possible contamination of land/groundwater on the site and mitigation measures to be undertaken to avoid risk to the public/buildings/environment before the site is developed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation/assessment shall include a written method statement for the risk based remediation of any land and/or groundwater contamination affecting the site including objectives, methodology, results and proposed methods of remediation. The development shall not commence until the measures approved in the scheme have been fully implemented. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise risk to the public, buildings and environment (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, EO3 and BE2).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), full details of screens, hoardings and associated artwork and the timing of its erection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screenings, hoardings and associated artwork shall be erected and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Page 39

Notwithstanding the submitted details, in the event the foundations for the proposed development require piling, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a method statement for approval detailing the type of piling and the mitigation measures to be taken to protect local residents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1, BE2 and BE5).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a noise insulation scheme detailing the acoustic noise insulation performance specification of the external building envelope of the residential units (having regard to the building fabric, glazing and ventilation) to reduce the level of noise experienced in the residential units as a result of the proximity of the bedrooms/living rooms to the high ambient noise levels in the area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall achieve the internal noise levels recommended in British Standard 8233:1999. The development shall be undertaken and shall remain unaltered in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants from the high ambient noise levels in the area (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of a ventilation scheme for the residential units on the façade fronting Christ’s Pieces (Drummer Street Bus Station) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken and shall remain unaltered in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of equipment for the purpose of

Page 40

extraction and/or filtration of fumes/odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved extraction/filtration scheme shall be installed prior to the occupation of the flats, be fitted in accordance with the approved details and remain unaltered unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties and future occupants (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2). 15

Before the development/use hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for the insulation of the building and plant in order to minimise the level of noise emanating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall specifically examine insulation for the proposed A3 use and all plant to be installed within and on top of the building. The development shall be undertaken prior to the occupation of the flats, be fitted in accordance with the approved details and remain unaltered unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties and future occupants (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of the on-site storage facilities for domestic and trade waste, including waste for recycling, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall identify the specific positions of where wheelie bins, recycling boxes, paladins or any other means of storage will be stationed and the arrangements for the disposal of waste. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be retained as such thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers and in the interests of visual amenity. (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2, BE4 and BE26)

All A1 retail units shall not be open for custom between the hours of 2300 to 0800, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

Page 41

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, Christ’s Lane shall be reopened as a pedestrian thoroughfare with unrestricted access for the members of the public at all times, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure satisfactory pedestrian linkage within this part of the City Centre and to provide for an appropriate security & public safety review (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P8/8, Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE2, TR15 and TR16 and to meet the aspirations of this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of ‘Bradwell’s Court – Planning and Design Brief’ 2002).

All commercial units within the Bradwell’s Court scheme (including premises forming part of the approved scheme which front onto St Andrew’s Street) shall be serviced from the approved basement service yard via Drummer Street. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

No servicing, deliveries or collections shall take place between the hours of 0730 to 0930 and 1630 to 1830 involving vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

The street level service bay hereby approved shall only be used for the servicing of Christ’s College and shall only be used between the hours of 0700 to 1100, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

All servicing, delivery and collections shall be undertaken between the hours of 0700 to 2300 Monday to Saturday only, excluding Sundays, Bank and other public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2).

Notwithstanding the approved plans, the details of the precise location, size and opening times (including hours of use of internal and external

Page 42

associated spaces) of all A3 uses within development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their occupation. The agreed details for A3 use/s shall then be undertaken and shall remain unaltered in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that impact of the development is managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies EO1 and BE2). 24

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a tenants shop front and signage protocol shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed signage protocol unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the details of development respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, street scene and historic surroundings (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P1/3 and P7/6 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE1, BE2, BE4, BE17, BE32 and BE35).

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any pre-construction, demolition or enabling works), or in accordance with an alternative timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and notwithstanding the approved plans, samples and detailed plans of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

External materials and finishes for all stonework, brickwork, roofing, metalwork, joinery, glazing and service delivery doors. External materials and finishes for all paving. Tree planting/soft landscaping and its timing, including details of the wire mesh and its fixing to Christ’s College wall. Lighting details. CCTV details including numbers, coverage and control arrangements. Street furniture, including signage, seating, bollards and walls. The precise position and design of cycle racks to accommodate not less than 52 cycle spaces on St Andrew’s Street frontage. The design of all cycle racks and lockers contained within the building proposed for residents and commercial users. Details of all proposed public art and its proposed timing for implementation. Details how the adjacent Listed Buildings are to be protected during construction.

Page 43

j.

Details of all plant, its size, type and position.

Neither the commercial or residential units shall be brought into use until all such details are fully provided in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the details of development respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, street scene and historic surroundings (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P1/3 and P7/6, Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE1, BE2, BE4, BE15, BE32, BE35, TR17 and RL26 and to meet the aspirations of this Council’s supplementary planning guidance in the form of ‘Bradwell’s Court – Planning and Design Brief 2002). 26

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, colour and type of jointing and shall be agreed in writing by 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 the building, shall be maintained throughout the development. Reason: To ensure that the details of development respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, street scene and historic surroundings (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P1/3 and P7/6 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE1, BE2, BE4, BE32 and BE35)

Details of the specification and position of fencing, or any other measures to be taken for the protection of any trees from damage during the course of development, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval, and implemented in accordance with that approval before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purpose of development (including demolition). The agreed means of protection shall be retained on site until all equipment, and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area protected in accordance with this condition, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area and to ensure the retention of the trees on the site. (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 and Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies NE17, BE2, BE4 and BE7). 28 No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance

Page 44

with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that an appropriate archaeological investigation of the site has been implemented before development commences. (Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policies BE40 and BE41) 29

Prior to the commencement of construction including any preconstruction, demolition or enabling works, details of a scheme for the provision and implementation of pollution control, which shall include foul and surface water drainage, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The works shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory method of surface and foul water drainage and to prevent the increased risk of pollution to the water environment. (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policy P1/3 Cambridge Local Plan 1996 policy EO3). INFORMATIVE: This planning permission should be read in conjunction with the associated deed of planning obligation prepared under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). INFORMATIVE: New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained from the Considerate Contractor project Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121). INFORMATIVE: From January 2005, extensive works are programmed for the area and traffic management measures will be in effect for a programmed period of 23 months. It will be necessary as part of condition 2 (G) of this planning permission to ensure that a strategic plan for the construction of Bradwell’s Court is co-ordinated with Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and the developers of the Grand Arcade scheme to ensure the construction period is effectively managed to minimise adverse impacts upon users and occupiers of the City. INFORAMTIVE: Notwithstanding any consent granted under the relevant Planning Act/s, the applicant is advised that before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the public highway the express consent of Cambridgeshire County Council (or its Agent) as the Local Highway

Page 45

Authority will be required. All costs associated with any construction works shall be borne by the developer. The developer will not be permitted to drain roof water over the public highway, nor across it in a surface channel, but must make arrangements to install a piped drainage connection. No window or door will be allowed to open over a highway and no foundation or footing for the structure will be allowed to encroach under the public highway. INFORMATIVE: Please refer to the attached Environmental Health Response regarding the various conditions proposed and the list of relevant informatives. INFORMATIVE: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments provided by this Council’s Disability Panel in respect of the accessibility of the site for disabled persons. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PLANNING OBLIGATION REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PLANNING APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETED BY 1 DECEMBER 2004, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS PLANNING APPLICATION BE REVIEWED AND, FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND CHAIR AND SPOKES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, BE REFUSED PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, education, transport mitigation measures, a new bus kiosk/information centre, public realm improvements, community safety, public art and off-site cycling improvements in accordance with the following policies, standards and proposals: Cambridge Local Plan (1996) policies EO8, RL3, RL4, CS3, CS9, TR2, TR3, HO7, RL26 and BE15; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1, P8/2, P8/3, P9/8 and P9/9; Planning Obligation Strategy (2004); Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan (2002); Provision of Public Art as Part of New Development Schemes (2002); Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation of Open Space Standards (2004); Car and Cycle Parking Standards (2004) and; Bradwell’s Court – Planning and Design Brief (2002) adopted as supplementary planning guidance by Cambridge City Council.

Open the original PDF