The Varsity Hotel and Spa has lost its fourth attempt to get permission to build a new canopy over its rooftop bar and terrace.

The latest iteration of the proposals divided councillors at a Cambridge City Council planning committee meeting on August 7, with the chair having to cast the deciding vote.

The hotel, in Thompsons Lane, had asked for permission to install a retractable roof canopy with living meadow walls.

The proposal was the latest iteration of a roof canopy the business had tried to get permission for with the three previous versions being refused by the city council.

Will Nichols, a representative of the hotel, told councillors that the proposed retractable roof canopy would allow the hotel to use the roof terrace more and employ additional staff.

He said if the canopy was built the hotel would be able to offer 24 new full-time jobs and 18 new part-time jobs.

Mr Nichols also said the roof terrace also 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.

Mr Nichols said: “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.”

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 representative from the College argued the plans for the roof canopy 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 that the roof 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”.

Councillors were left divided by the latest proposals for the rooftop canopy.

Councillor Katie Porrer said they needed to give “significant weight” to the 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”.

Councillor Karen Young 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, Councillor Naomi Bennett 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.

Councillor Robert Dryden said it was “unfair” the city 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, Councillor Martin Smart, therefore had the casting vote, and voted to refuse the application.