A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details

Decision details

15/0596/FUL - Land R/O 268 Queen Ediths Way

Decision Maker: Planning

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 3No. five bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Jackson.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Referred to objections made by residents as listed in the Planning Officer’s report.

  ii.  Referred to comments made by the Urban Design Team and Conservation Officer as listed in the Planning Officer’s report. For example, overlooking of Queen Edith’s Way residents’ gardens.

  iii.  Took issue with details in the Applicant’s drawings.

  iv.  Suggested the development was unsuitable.

 

Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Referred to the previous committee discussion of the last application.

  ii.  Agreed with the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

  iii.  The design was out of character with the area.

  iv.  Trees had been cleared from the site to make way for proposed housing.

 

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the reasons for refusal be split and voted upon separately.

 

Original recommendation:

 

1.  The proposed development would, by virtue of its unsympathetic scale, bulky design and loss of trees, have a significantly detrimental impact on the character and setting of this edge of city site and surrounding rural context. The proposed development would result in an alien form of development that would appear incongruous from the rear gardens of the properties in Queen Edith’s Way and unduly diminish the rural character of this green edge from Lime Kiln Road. The proposal fails to sympathetically respond to the site context. For these reasons the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/2, 3/4, 3/12 and 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2.  The proposed development would, due to its angled layout, three storey scale and proximity to the western boundary, introduce a form of development that would cause overlooking, the perception of being overlooked and introduce an dominant and bulky form of development close to the rear gardens of the existing dwellings in Queen Edith’s Way. As such, the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents in terms of loss of privacy and enclosure. The proposal would also, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to discount reason 1.

 

The Committee resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to split reason 2 as follows:

 

1.  The proposed development would, due to its angled layout, three storey scale and proximity to the western boundary, introduce a form of development that would cause overlooking, the perception of being overlooked and introduce an dominant and bulky form of development close to the rear gardens of the existing dwellings in Queen Edith’s Way. As such, the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents in terms of loss of privacy and enclosure.

2.  The proposal would also, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to discount (new) reason 1.

 

The Committee resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to accept the following amended reason for refusal (reference to policy 3/4 removed as (new) reason 1 had been discounted):

 

The proposal would, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reason set out below:

 

The proposal would, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Publication date: 29/10/2015

Date of decision: 07/10/2015

Decided at meeting: 07/10/2015 - Planning

Accompanying Documents: