Roundup of objections from organisations and consultees

Naturally, neighbours who would be affected by developments like that of the EF Language School are only one group which get to make comments. Here I’ve rounded up a few comments by professional consultees and other organisations.

Mark Taylor, Access Officer, Cambridge City Council:
“After seeing the architects aspirations to cited both classical and the most modern buildings I expected more from this application.”

Dinah Foley-Norman, Street and Open Spaces Dept., Cambridge City Council:
“We are concerned about the proposals to introduce two new pedestrian entrances… The accumulative effect of moving the building (with construction of a basement) together with the considerable amount of cycle parking and pedestrian routes with its associated hard paving will have a considerable impact on tree root systems. (The) category A trees do not adapt to pruning well and once pruned will always be lop-sided… the tree protection fence is 1.0m from building line which is not considered adequate for construction purposes. There is also concern over how a piling rig will operate among the tree branches without causing damage. Given the above comments, I would object to the proposals on arboricultural grounds.”

Nadine La-Vigars, on behallf of Housing Standards, Environmental Health Dept., Cambridge City Council:
“Cambridge City Council Housing Standards Team have standards regarding occupancy levels of bedrooms … based on sections 325 and 326 of the 1985 Housing Act. Section 325 states that the room standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling and the number of rooms available as sleeping accommodation is such that two persons of opposite sexes who are not living together as husband and wife must sleep in the same room and section 326 states the space standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number, having regard to the number and floor area ofhe rooms of the dwelling available as sleeping accommodation, the permitted number of occupants in a room size of 10.22 m² or greater being no more than 2. … Cambridge City Council has further guidance on long stay hostels and this states that in no case should a bedroom be occupied by more than two persons and rooms shall not be shared unless the individuals concerned consent to share. In any event, no persons above the age of 10 and of opposite sexes shall be required to sleep in the same room unless they are co-habitees. Taking into consideration the above legislation and guidance, the sleeping rooms should be occupied by no more than 2 persons of the same sex, who consent to share and are under the age of 21. As this is the case, I would strongly recommend that the Housing Standards informative be imposed should permission be granted.”

St. Johns Church, Hills Road:
“We believe that a development of this scale and prominence should be the subject of consultation over a much wider area than the list of addresses seen … for this application.”

Cambridge Cycling Campaign:
“Cambridge Cycling Campaign objects to the application on the grounds of insufficient number of cycle parking spaces and lack of detail. As the intention is for the college to accommodate up to 360 students, supported by up to 40 administrative and teaching staff, and to provide 30 bedrooms for a maximum of 90 students, we calculate, according to City Car and Cycling Parking Standards, that the number of bike parking spaces should be 350 … The application provides 114 spaces. This is clearly far short of the City Car and Cycling Parking Standards requirement.”

3 Replies to “Roundup of objections from organisations and consultees”

  1. We are outraged to read of this development for the first time by a leaflet put through our door today. Where was the planning application notice? I pass the school daily and have never seen it. This has been done in an underhand way with an attempt made to slip it in without anyone noticing. This development would be a further degradation of Hills Road with the ugly oversized buildings which are now clustered round the railway bridge extending farther into the pleasant residential area southwards. I would also oppose it on the grounds given in the letter you published; there are already crowds of noisy young people on the pavement often now, what would it be like with so many more? We are members of Cambridge Past Present and Future and will be informing them of this to get advice. Please keep us informed of any developments. Is this meeting on July 4 a public meeting?

    1. I also live in the area close to the EF language school. I also attended the public meeting on july 4th. The over development of the site was starkly revealed during the hour or so of submissions, discussion and questions. I thought the submission of the gentleman living at Alliance Court and his questioning of the developers’ proposed plan was all the more effective for being restrained and reasonable. I hope that even at this late time the Council will respond positively to the justified alarm evident amongst local residents.

      On the scale shown the planned development is a gross intrusion. Can we not learn lessons from the ugliness of the the nearby railway bridge development?

  2. Hi Frans and Rosamund

    There’s a bit more information about the Development Control Forum here. It’s not a public meeting, but it does take representations from representative local residents, and those of us who organised the petition which requested it will not waste the opportunity. However, it’s designed more to see if there are any compromises which can be reached, I believe.

    Please make your own comments through the Council website, it’s important that they get as many different views as possible by the closing date.

What do you think? Add your comments here