Decision details

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition number 2 of permission 14/1252/FUL.

 

The application sought approval to permit revised cycle and bin storage locations, revised internal configurations and revised location of plant from the eastern elevation to the roof.

 

The Planning Officer updated his report recommendation by referring to pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet.

 

The Access Officer made the following points in response to the Committee’s request for information about access:

       i.          The entrance was acceptable.

     ii.          The gradient of the ramp from access paths was fairly steep, but acceptable in accordance with personal evacuation plan criteria. The ramps/paths were an existing feature so not a material consideration in the application.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·       Resident of Edward Street.

·       York Street.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to Local Plan policies referenced in the officer’s report and suggested they had not been met.

     ii.          Expressed concern about:

a.    The gradient of the paths used for emergency access/egress. Queried if these complied with building and disability regulations.

b.    Noise from the site.

c.    The treatment of open space in Petersfield Ward.

d.    Planting on the building roof.

e.    Intensification of site use.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to various concerns expressed by residents such as the impact of roof planting on the area.

     ii.          Paths had been built on areas of general open space, they should have been built on areas controlled by the applicant. As such, the paths should be removed and relocated.

   iii.          Officers had given advice that planting should be located on the side of the building, which the applicant had ignored and built on the roof. This was inappropriate.

   iv.          The building did not meet Conservation Area policies such as 4/39. Referred to comments from the Conservation Team as listed in the officer’s report.

    v.          Asked for the application to be refused.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

       i.          The plant and its associated screening, because of its length, height and visibility from surrounding streets and from St Matthew’s Piece, appears as a cumbersome addition to the roof top of the existing building and is of poor design. Its presence is incongruous and the external mirrored screen finish proposed would only serve to draw attention to it. Painting the plant as a substitute for the screen would not be appropriate and a condition seeking an alternative screening detail would not overcome the impact of its presence. As such, the plant installation as existing and as proposed with the mirrored screen finish would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and surrounding park and open space contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/11. The harm would be less than substantial to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole but would not be outweighed by any identifiable public benefit arising from its installation and is therefore contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012). 

     ii.          The proposed paths and associated spurs off the east side of the building and within the protected open space and Conservation Area unnecessarily fragment its configuration and are harmful to its former soft grassed character and setting. The former character of the protected open space provided a continuous grassed area connecting the protected open space from the east of the building to the south side of the building and to the remainder of St Matthew’s Piece. As a result of their installation, the paths appear at odds with the former setting of the building within its landscaped environment and reduce the flexibility of the open space for recreational use by members of the public and users of the building. They do not serve to enhance either the use or setting of the protected open space and only serve the building for means of fire escape. As such, the paths are contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 4/2 and 4/11 and are contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012).

 

The City Development Manager sought delegated authority to commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate as per page 74 of the officer report. This was agreed nem con.