Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a residential development containing 14 flats comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 6 x 1-bed units, along with access, car parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing buildings.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Suggested there were sound material considerations to refuse the application. (As below.)

     ii.          Avoidance of affordable housing provision by dropping the number of units on-site from 15 to 14 to avoid the threshold.

   iii.          Cramped accommodation and lack of usable amenity space.

   iv.          Noise concerns.

    v.          Failure to provide a high quality living environment.

   vi.          The application should be assessed against policies in the new National Planning Policy Framework and emerging Local Plan, even if these were not signed off by the Planning Inspector.

 

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

 

Councillor McGerty (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Objected to the lack of affordable housing provided on-site. This was a concern about the previous application too.

     ii.          Thanked the Applicant for responding in some way to the points made at the earlier Development Control Forum.

   iii.          Queried why the Applicant had used minimum space standards for rooms if the Applicant was keen to provide high quality/affordable housing where possible. Queried if units were crammed onto the site (to get maximum numbers).

 

 

Councillor Pippas (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Hills Road is a gateway to the city.

     ii.          Suggested the application was contrary to policies in the emerging Local Plan.

   iii.          Residents and local councillors had identified 10 ways where they believed the application did not meet (new) Local Plan policies eg amenity space and responding to context.

   iv.          Cambridge is an attractive city due to its architecture, this needed to be protected.

    v.          Concern over demolition and replacement of the existing building. This should be kept and reconfigured internally for re-use.

 

The Chair re-iterated points made by the Senior Planning Officer in her introduction:

       i.          This was a new application that should be considered on its own merits.

     ii.          The 4 reasons for refusal given for the last application were material considerations.

   iii.          The Committee were obliged under planning law to consider the application under the current Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework, as the emerging ones were not adopted.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers, with delegated authority to agree the wording of the S106 Agreement.