Planning Objections
Please see below details of how you can object to planning applications for Micky Flynn’s pool hall. You can cut and paste the information contained and/or add your own objections as well. Let’s show them that despite their repeated attempts to force this change through we will continue to fight for the right to have a say in the way our OWN community is shaped and formed. Remember….
Mickey Flynn’s Planning Applications:
14/0964/FUL
Change of use from Pool and Snooker Club to A1 (Shops)
14/0966/FUL
Change of use from Pool & Snooker Club to A2 (Financial & Professional Services), A3 (Restaurant & Cafes) and A4 (Drinking Establishments) in the alternative.
The snooker hall has once again made an application for change of use to A1 shop use. This has been refused twice previously as a result of community opposition. There is a second application for change of use to a range of other possibilities.
Previous A1 applications were made in order to allow for a Sainsbury store. Sainsbury are not leading this particular application. We once again we strongly oppose these applications and ask you to send your objections before the deadline of 15th July on the Cambridge City Council Planning Portal:
https://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N73TEODXG2900
The key points for objections are as follows:
1. The two new applications are again seeking broad and unspecific change of use for Mickey Flynn’s Pool Hall; in this instance separating the application for an A1 (Shop) and the application for A2, A3 and A4 (Financial Services, Restaurants and Cafes). They pose the risk of conflicting both with the recognised character of the street and with the need to address the serious road safety problems.
2. The proposals do nothing to protect the character of the area, including ‘Mill Road’s characteristic smaller independent traders’ (recognised in the Cambridge Local Plan as a key feature of the area), or to ‘safeguard the independent, cosmopolitan feel of the street’ (Policy 23).
3. The lack of a named occupier makes it impossible to judge the impact of each of the potential uses. However, the application for change of use to an A1 shop raises fears of a repeat bid for a supermarket-chain convenience store, with accompanying servicing problems and threat to Mill Road’s independent traders.
4. The application, if approved would involve the loss of the only leisure facility on Mill Road, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan Policy 6/1 (‘Protection of Leisure Facilities’) and subsequent NPPF policies.
5. The application, if approved, would result in the site being serviced by vehicles stopping on Mill Road several times a day, posing a significant obstruction and highway safety risk in a known accident blackspot, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan Policies 8/2 (‘Transport Impact’) and 8/9 (‘Commercial Vehicles and Servicing’).
6. Approval of the application, which makes no provision for car parking, would lead to increased pressure on limited car parking in the area and would be very likely to increase the incidence of dangerous and illegal parking on Mill Road. In this respect, the proposals are not compatible with Cambridge Local Plan Policy 8/2 (‘Transport Impact’).
7. In the event of the site being occupied by a convenience store, the application provides no information concerning noise impacts caused by externally venting refrigeration and air conditioning systems or from deliveries. For both of these reasons, the application is incompatible with Cambridge Local Plan 4/13 (‘Pollution and Amenity’).
8. The application makes no provision for waste and cage storage.
9. As with the previous two applications, another supermarket-chain convenience store would be a threat to the vitality and viability of the Mill Road centre, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan Policies 6/7 (‘Shopping Development and Change of Use in District and Local Centres’), including:
6.16: “Shopping policies […] seek to enhance the vitality and viability of the City Centre and support the role of the District and Local Centres[…]
6.17: “Applications for retail developments will, where appropriate, be subject to the demonstration […] that there will not be an adverse impact on existing centres, and that transport and environmental matters have been considered.”
These all relate to the A1 (shops) application. The non-specific occupiers, deliveries, car parking and vitality and viability arguments relate to both.
Mill Road Society