Flat plan changes spark neighbour concerns

Forty new serviced apartments are planned on the site of a former care home

Plans for 40 new short-stay flats in Cambridge have changed despite objections from neighbours.

The flats are due to be built on the site of a former care home on Queen Edith’s Way, which has been demolished.

The original application included a basement level, where some parking spaces, bin storage and air source heat pumps were promised.

But the basement has now been removed from the plan which means there will be just seven parking spaces instead of 14, sparking neighbour concerns about parking on streets.

The apartments will offer short stay accommodation, usually less than six months, for both leisure and business visitors.

Serviced flats are let fully furnished and equipped, with utility and internet bills included in the rent.

The developer, GCR Camprop Eight Ltd, had previously said there was "significant demand" for this type of accommodation in the city, with potential residents including workers at Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

The application for the flats' construction was initially rejected by Cambridge City Council over concerns it would offer a "poor level of accommodation", according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

However, this decision was overturned after the developer lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

A spokesperson for the developer said the removal of the basement "should be welcomed, particularly as this will result in a much more efficient build and deliver a significant carbon reduction".

They added that they consider the number of parking spaces "appropriate" since lower car usage could be expected at the site due to its location and that the change would not impact highway safety.

Some neighbours raised concerns the cut in parking spaces.

David Levien, a councillor, said people would "almost certainly" be driving to Cambridge to stay in the flats.

Planning officers said the council had a maximum parking policy but no requirement for a minimum number, meaning the proposals met the authority’s policies.