Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for residential development containing 15 flats (comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 7 x 1-bed units), along with access, car parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing buildings.

 

The Senior Planner referred to the pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet:

·       Minor corrections to wording of conditions to remove typographical errors.

·       Removal of the recommended public art condition 31

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from residents of Hills Road.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Suggested there were planning reasons to refuse the application.

     ii.          Local Plan Policy 3/10 (sub-division of existing plots) was not mentioned in the Officer’s report, although it was directly relevant.

a.    Criterion A was not met due to impact on amenity, loss of privacy, overbearing, sense of enclosure and light pollution.

b.    Criterion B was not met due to inadequate amenity space as 15 families would live on the proposed development.

c.    Criterion C was not met due to as the development would detract from the character and appearance of the area. Also overlooking neighbouring properties and loss of privacy.

d.    Criterion E was not met due to adverse effects on trees and wildlife

   iii.          Expressed concern over loss of family home and proposed that affordable housing should have been required under the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

   iv.          The Senior Planner’s report asked Councillors to disregard Planning Policy 5/5.

    v.          The Supplementary Planning Document was a material consideration which should be followed. It was the relevant document to consider until the 2014 draft document was adopted.

 

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

 

Councillor Price (Executive Councillor for Housing – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          There was great demand for affordable housing in the city.

     ii.          The greatest need was for 1-2 bedroom homes.

   iii.          The 2006 Local Plan and 2008 Supplementary Planning Document set 15 properties as the threshold at which housing developments are required to provide affordable housing. This would be amended to 11 in the new draft Local Plan.

   iv.          The application proposed to replace 1 large home with 15 flats.

    v.          Asked the Planning Committee to reject the application as it did not meet the requirements of policy 5/5 in the 2006 Local Plan or paragraph 30 in the Supplementary Planning Document to provide affordable housing.

 

Councillor T. Moore (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor - City Council) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Expressed concern about the impact of the development on congestion on the south part of the city and Ring Road.

     ii.          A small change in traffic volumes could produce a disproportionate impact on network flow during busy times. Vehicles leaving the site could cause traffic flow issues for the whole of the south area, including Addenbrooke’s Hospital.

   iii.          Vehicles egress from the development would be hindered by existing traffic routes as they would have to cross traffic lanes.

   iv.          The Highways Agency was not good at modelling the impact of developments on the road network as a whole, just on individual junctions.

    v.          Requested further modelling of the impact of the development on the Hills Road / Long Road / Queen Edith’s Way junction and southern road network.

   vi.          The network was important for the economy and health (ie impact of pollution) of the city.

 vii.          Queuing vehicles would exacerbate air quality issues.

 

Councillor Taylor (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor – County Council) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Traffic, accidents and parking were key issues for residents.

     ii.          Addenbrooke’s Hospital was located in the area, which already had heavy traffic, traffic flow and parking issues.

   iii.          Cycleways had recently been built on Hills Road to reduce car numbers.

   iv.          Hills Road had the highest traffic levels in south east Cambridgeshire.

    v.          The Addenbrooke’s junction was already at capacity. More companies were expected to relocate on the site in future and so add to congestion.

   vi.          Referred to the Officer’s report stating the application met planning policy criteria for traffic; the site was seen as sustainable due to bus and cycle links. It may do so in theory but Queen Edith’s Ward had the highest level of car ownership in the city, so the application may have an unacceptable traffic impact contrary to indications from traffic modelling.

 vii.          Referred to an application that was refused in 1990 due to traffic capacity issues. The situation had not changed.

viii.          A pedestrian crossing had not been included on the Queen Edith’s Way section of the traffic junction due to the negative impact on traffic flow. T

 

The Chair asked for Officer advice on:

       i.          How much consideration should be given to the ex ante Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document.

     ii.          Traffic impact.

 

Officers answered:

       i.          The Legal Advisor said:

a.    Councillors should determine the planning application on current planning policy (ie 5/5 of the 2006 Local Plan) unless an exception could be demonstrated.

b.    The policy was typically interpreted as net increase of housing, not gross.

c.    The Supplementary Planning Document was guidance that sat behind the Local Plan.

d.    It was a decision for Councillors how much weight they gave to the Supplementary Planning Document.

     ii.          The Lead Engineer said:

a.    The National Planning Policy Framework indicated that the Highways Agency should not object to applications unless a severe detrimental negative impact could be demonstrated.

b.    The small increase in vehicles was not enough to demonstrate a reason to object to the application.

c.    The traffic model had a margin of error. Smaller numbers of vehicles had greater margin of error in the model.

d.    He was unaware of any modelling that could calculate the impact of vehicles from the application on the network as a whole.

e.    The Hills Road / Long Road / Queen Edith’s junction was over capacity.

f.      Vehicles from the application would have to cross traffic lanes to egress the site, but this should happen safely.

g.    He could not advise that there would be a severe adverse impact or that the junction would operate unsafely and therefore had no objection to the proposal.

 

The Committee:

 

Councillor Tunnicliffe absented himself for the vote and part of the discussion on this item.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. The Chair abstained.

 

·       The Committee decided reasons for refusal should be voted on and recorded separately:

·       Accepted (by 5 votes to 0): Lack of affordable housing.

·       Accepted (by 5 votes to 0): Inadequate cycle parking arrangements.

·       Accepted (by 4 votes to 2): Inadequate visitor parking.

·       Accepted (by 4 votes to 1): Cramped living conditions.

·       Lost (by 2 votes to 3): Bland design.

 

The Committee were asked to consider if they wished to follow the adjourned decision making protocol or make a decision at this committee. They resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to make a decision at this committee.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation. The Chair abstained.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to delegate authority to Officers to prepare reasons for refusal based upon the lack of affordable housing, inadequate cycle parking arrangements, cramped living conditions and unacceptable design layout resulting in no provision of visitor parking.