Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a mixed used development comprising of a Day Nursery at ground floor and 40 self-contained 1 x bed student rooms at the rear and on the upper floors along with a vehicle drop-off zone, cycle parking and associated landscaping.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Malta Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The nursery did not add to the community facilities because it would be replace a boxing club.

    ii.        The development would have a detrimental impact on its neighbours on Malta Road and Ruth Bagnall Court, they would be hemmed in which contravened planning policy.

   iii.        The light survey undertaken concluded that the new building would diminish light in some locations by 50%. Furthermore, no light assessment had been undertaken for some impacted residences on Malta Road.

  iv.        Commented that the application was not in keeping with the conservation area.

   v.        Once inhabited the development would cause noise and disturbance. From personal experience a management plan would not prevent noise in the area.

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

Councillors Smith, Barnett and Baigent (Ward Councillors) wrote a letter to the Committee about the application:

     i.        Supported the regeneration of the building and the inclusion of a nursery.

    ii.        It was felt that the community had not been listened to during the application process.

   iii.        Confirmed that they did not support the application, the area needed more residential accommodation rather than student accommodation.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

       i.        The proposed development would be in close proximity to the kitchen and living room windows within Ruth Bagnell Court. Due to the scale of the proposed building, it would result in the significant deterioration of daylight within north facing kitchen windows 4 and 7 (at first and ground floors) as identified in the ‘t16 Design Daylight and Sunlight Assessment’ of June 2017. Given that existing daylight levels within the kitchens are already limited, the impact would be to significantly reduce daylight into the kitchens further and thus harm the residential amenity of existing occupants. In combination with the loss of light, the south facing 4 storey part of the development onto Coleridge Road would be within 4m and 6m of the north elevation of flats within Ruth Bagnell Court. Kitchen and living room windows of flats in this development face north towards the Coleridge Road wing and the outlook from the single aspect living room windows of flat 11 and corresponding flats above and below this would be dominated by the proposed development to the extent that it would significantly enclose and harm the amenity of existing occupants. As such, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2016) policies 3/4 and 3/7 in that it is has failed to properly respond to its context, has failed to have proper regard for the constraints of the site and would fail to provide an acceptable relationship between existing and proposed buildings. As such, the proposal is also contrary to NPPF (2012) guidance at paragraph 17 in that it would fail to safeguard the amenity of existing occupants.

      ii.        The proposed courtyard space for the scheme would be small, cramped and feel hemmed-in for potential users. Given that the external environment to the site is onto a busy highway, the amenity space provided by the courtyard is inadequate and would provide little relief to the busy external environment. To this extent, the proposal represents a poor and inflexible layout and poor design and would fail to provide an external space that would be enjoyable to use for proposed existing and future users of it. As such, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/11 and is contrary to the NPPF (2012) at paragraph 17 in that it would fail to secure a high quality external space design and good standard of amenity for future users.

Delegated authority was also granted for officers to complete s.106 if an appeal is made.