I wish to object to the further development of the Mill Road
Depot site as proposed by the planning application 19/0175/FUL as it
contravenes the adopted SPD for the site on a number of grounds:
Housing Density
Urban Grain
Size and views
Sustainability
Introduction
This proposal
completes the development of the Mill road depot site, which was
subject to extensive planning consultations in 2015 and ‘16 and
resulted in the “Mill Road Depot, Planning and Development Brief”
published and approved by the Cambridge City Council in March 2017
and “carried forward for adoption as a Supplementary Planning
Document at the same time as the Local Plan” to become effective in
April 2018.
In December 2017,
between the agreement to adopt the SPD and its activation, the CIP
applied to develop 75% of the site. The plan, approved by the
planning committee exceeded the recommendation of the SPD in terms of
both density, number of dwelling and height of building, but provided
none of the community facilities that were recommended by the SPD. It
was suggested that these would be addressed in a Phase II proposal.
I submitted an
objection to the phase I development sent to the planning officer
[Sav Patel] on 1st Feb 2018 and posted on the council’s
planning portal “idox” site. The text of the objection can be
read at http://goldfin.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.html.
This application fails to meet the recommendation of the SPD in terms
of density, urban grain, sustainability and the size of the building.
Density
The 2017
application increased the proposed density of the site by almost 40%
from the SPD. Since then the developers have submitted two further
applications:
18/1947/S73
“application to vary condition 2 of planning permission …” and
19/0175/FUL “The
erection of an apartment building (45 dwellings) ...”
Both of these
applications request that more dwellings are developed on the site.
The table below summarises the process of development creep:
-
Proposal
Number dwellings
Site area
(Ha)
Density
(dph)
Mill Road Depot SPD
167
2.7
62
Phase I application 17/2245/FUL
182
2.1
86
Section 73 application
186
2.1
88
Phase II application 19/0175/FUL
231
2.7
85
It must be noted
that this density is substantially more than the surrounding St.
Mattews area and more than almost all of the development sites listed
in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014. Indeed the site opposite the depot
of Mill Road, R9, Travis Perkins DevonshireRoadhas a proposed density
of only 35dph.
Urban Grain and Scale
The SPD states:
“3.2.3
Proposals should provide a contextual approach to scale and massing
in response to the typical domestic scale of development on
surrounding streets”
The proposal for
the apartment building B.01, as shown for example on page 13 of the
“Views assesment” document, dwarfs the existing buildings as seen
from Mill Road and the railway bridge.
Having relocated
the building from the position in the SPD adjacent to the Old
Library, B.01 is now more closely related to the language school
buildings and the buildings opposite on Mill Road. To respond to the
“ scale and massing” of these buildings, a 5 storey building,
orientated North/South is entirely out of context.
Figure 27 on Page
40 of the SPD shows a block as “new mixed use zone with courtyard”
of appximatley 13m x 37m located in the 3 and 4 storey zones of
figure 42 on Page 54 which would suggest a height of no more than 13
metres. Ignoring the suggestion of a courtyard, the potential block
has a volume of no more than 6,253 cubic metres.
On p31 the D&A
states:
“The site layout
is also consistent with the framework plan (Fig 27) in the Planning
and Development Brief (SPD) with the exception of the location of the
linear building, which has moved further east to mitigate any impact
on the Language School ...”
The plans show a
block B_01 as 18m x 50m and the elevation shows 5 stories and 16m to
the eaves. The volume of B_01 exceeds 14,400 and so is almost two and
a half times more massive than the allocation in the SPD.
Sustainability
The SPD specifically mentions the importance of sustainability issues, for example:
4.8.3 A combination of passive design solutions and building design
solutions should form the basis of site energy strategies for future
schemes.
4.8.11 There are likely to be opportunities to enhance the ecology
and biodiversity of the site.
4.8.13 Flat and low pitched roofs could provide an opportunity to
improve the ecology of the site and contribute to the general
increase in biodiversity.
However, there is
no evidence that Block B_01 has been designed with sustainability in
mind.
The Cambridge
Investment Partnership’s Design and Access Statement (prepared by
Allies and Morrison) does refer to issues in the SPD, but then refers
to the Ecology and Tree reports by consultants, Property Risk
Consultants Ltd for more information These make no specific
recommendations or design proposals.
The statements in
the Design and Access statement refer Block B_10. Block B_01 is the
most massive structure in the proposal and contains the greatest
number of dwellings. However, it is orientated east-west, limiting
the use of passive solar design or PV solar panels. It has no
measures to enhance the ecology and biodiversity of the site
Conclusion
The current
proposal exceeds the requirements of both the SPD and the Local Plan
and does nothing to enhance the site in relation to Phase I.
I hope the Council
will recommend rejection of this proposal to the planning committee.
