Latest bid for roof terrace canopy at The Varsity Hotel and Spa in Cambridge rejected

A fourth bid to secure planning permission to build a canopy over the rooftop bar and terrace at The Varsity Hotel and Spa has been rejected.

Owners of the Thompsons Lane hotel applied for permission to install a retractable roof canopy with living meadow walls after three previous versions were refused by Cambridge City Council

However, the latest iteration divided councillors at a planning committee meeting on Wednesday (August 7), with the chair casting the deciding vote.

Will Nichols, a representative of the hotel, told councillors that the proposed canopy would allow the hotel to use the roof terrace more and offer 24 new full-time jobs and 18 new part-time jobs.

Mr Nichols also said the terrace offered an accessible place for people with disabilities to see Cambridge’s skyline.

He said the hotel owners had worked hard to make “significant changes” to the proposed canopy after the previous refusals.

“The applicant is an established independent business in the city, which has been working with officers over the past couple of years to try to provide a solution to the economic impacts on the business of inclement weather.

“The inability to use the roof terrace year round has a significant impact on its use, its public access, and the number of staff that can be employed.

“By introducing a retractable roof public access would be significantly enhanced and jobs secured.

“A suboptimal possible solution to the unpredictable weather would be to use large unsightly umbrellas and parasols of about the same height, which do not require planning permission,” said Mr Nichols.

Mr Nichols said the various benefits of the proposals “significantly” outweighed the impact of the canopy on the nearby heritage buildings.

However, the latest application was met with opposition from some, including from Magdalene College.

A college representative argued the plans were “effectively proposing to create an eighth storey”, which they said would adversely impact the character of the conservation area.

One member of the public who opposed the plans said the development would make the hotel’s roof an “even more dominant and incongruous feature”.

However, the hotel did receive support for its plans, including from one neighbour who told councillors that the hotel has been a “good neighbour” since it opened.

They added that the additional jobs would be a benefit for people in the area.

A member of staff from the hotel also spoke at the meeting and told councillors the canopy would help give her job security. She said some of her colleagues had already been made redundant as demand for the terrace had slowed down following the “unpredictable weather”.

Cllr Katie Porrer (Lib Dem, Market) said they needed to give “significant weight” to a planning inspector’s decision to reject a previous version of the canopy. She said the inspector had been “clear the economic benefits at the time did not outweigh the harm”.

Cllr Porrer said she understood it was important to keep as many jobs as possible, but said “equally” there were jobs in the city created because its historic character was protected to keep it “beautiful”.

Cllr Karen Young (Lib Dem, Queen Edith’s) said the hotel building already “stands out” in the city’s skyline.

She raised concerns that approving the roof canopy could put the conservation area skyline in “jeopardy” if other applications came forward to increase the height of other buildings.

However, Cllr Naomi Bennett (Green, Abbey) highlighted the benefit of the new jobs created, explaining she gave this more weight in her balance of the pros and cons than before, as the economy had “deteriorated” since then.

She also said she liked the accessibility of the roof terrace which allowed people with disabilities to enjoy the city’s skyline.

Cllr Robert Dryden (Lab, Cherry Hinton) said it was “unfair” the council seemed to be scrutinising these plans more than it had some of its own developments.

He said: “In my 28 years being on the planning committee I have never seen such a manner of development get so much scrutiny, it amazes me how it has come about.

“The building is already there, all they want to do is put a cover over the top of it.”

When put to a vote the committee was evenly split with four voting to refuse the plans and four voting in support. The chair of the committee, Cllr Martin Smart (Lab, King’s Hedges), therefore had the casting vote, and voted to refuse the application.