Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

As applications for 143-147 Newmarket Road and 149 Newmarket Road and Abbey Church impacted on each other, the Committee were advised to listen to the Planner’s introductory report on both, listen to public speakers on both, then deliberate on both applications before voting separately on each.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of No.149 Newmarket Road and existing garage structures, the erection of new buildings producing a total of 11 residential units (an increase of 10), the formation of a cafe space (use class A3) on the ground floor of Logic House, brick and tile tinting to Logic House and associated infrastructure and works.

 

The Planner updated her report by referring to text amendments and pre-committee amendments to recommendation on the amendment sheet. The Planner said the report contained a typographical error, there were 2 windows not 1 at the rear of the property.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Circulated a handout of pictures (already in the public domain) listing residents’ concerns.

    ii.        The application would have an overbearing impact on the Conservation Area and Beche Road residents.

   iii.        The application would have a negative impact on green space and the grade II listed Abbey Church.

  iv.        Residents were concerned that the Logic House Applicant broke an agreement to do a joint scheme with Abbey Church. By taking their own application forward, the Logic House development would block the Church’s.

   v.        Suggested the uncoordinated development of the area was contrary to Local Plan policy 3/6.

 

The Appointed Person on the Parish Church Council of Christ Church representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Objected to the application process rather than the design itself.

    ii.        The Abbey Church was a key historic building his organisation wanted to bring back into use.

   iii.        The Church was working with this site’s Applicant on a joint scheme, but the Applicant had broken the joint working arrangement.

  iv.        The Church would prefer a joint working arrangement in future.

 

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

 

Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Re-iterated residents’ comments that the application would impact on residents of Beche Road and Abbey Road.

    ii.        The Developer broke joint working arrangements with the Church.

   iii.        Asked the Committee to defer considering the application to give the Church more time to revise their application or re-instate joint working arrangements with this site’s developer.

  iv.        Suggested the application could be refused due to:

a.   Impact of uncoordinated development on Beche Road/Church (Local Plan policy 3/6).

b.   Harm to a historic building (Local Plan policy 3/10).

c.   Negative impact on public amenity:

                                         i.    Loss of post office.

                                        ii.    Lack of acceptable space.

                                       iii.    Lack of light.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Chair decided that possible reasons for refusal should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

     i.        Scale, mass and height of the application prejudiced the development of the Abbey Church site.

Agreed unanimously to accept as a reason for refusal.

 

    ii.        Impact of sense of enclosure and overbearing on Beche Road.

Agreed by 6 votes to 0 to accept as a reason for refusal.

 

   iii.        Scale, design, massing and streetscape did not enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

Agreed by 7 votes to 1 to accept as a reason for refusal.

 

(Reason (iii) was originally agreed without streetscene reference, so Committee voted 6-2 to annul the reason then re-voted 6-1 to include the streetscene reference.)

 

  iv.        Poor quality of living and amenity space.

Agreed by 7 votes to 1 to accept as a reason for refusal.

 

Agreed by 6 votes to 1 to accept the reasons for refusal as listed above.

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.   By virtue of its scale, mass, and height adjacent to the boundary with the pan handle strip of land which forms part of the Abbey Church site, the proposal would prejudice the future development potential on the adjacent site and would therefore be contrary to Policy 3/6 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

2.   By virtue of its scale, mass, height, and proximity to the northern boundary of the site, the proposal would have an unacceptable enclosing, overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking impact on the gardens of dwellings in Beche Road to the north, which are approximately 3.5m lower than the application site. The proposal would therefore harm the amenities of occupiers of the adjacent dwellings contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 4/7 and 3/12. 

 

3.   By virtue of the scale, massing and design of the buildings, the development would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene of this part of Newmarket Road and would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Abbey Church. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/12, 4/10 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

 

4.   The proposed development, by virtue of the overly cramped and small internal living spaces within the dwellings and the poor quality of external amenity space for all of the units, would fail to provide a satisfactory quality of living environment and standard of amenity for future occupiers. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of policy 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) which seeks to provide high quality living environments within new developments.