Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of a building comprising of three 2 bed units, six 1 bed units and one studio flat. The proposal would provide one visitor/disabled parking space and 13 cycle parking spaces.

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

Councillors sought advice from the Legal Advisor on reasons that could be considered for refusal of the application if they were minded to do so. The Legal Advisor said that amenity was a low risk reason for refusal, parking was a higher risk one. He suggested not including it due to cost implications to the Council if Officers tried to contest a decision that was hard to defend. Several Committee Members were minded to support parking as a possible reason for refusal as the application would exacerbate existing parking pressure in the area. The Chair said that Highways Authority comments in the report reflected advice to consider for housing estates in rural areas. The comments had been made in January 2018, so were no longer relevant. They had to be included in the Officer’s report as the comments had been made. The Highways Authority were asked not to include generic comments more appropriate to rural developments in future consultation responses. The Chair said National Planning Policy Framework guidance on parking standards was a material consideration for Planning Committee Members.

Councillor Hipkin volunteered to give evidence at an appeal if parking was proposed as a reason for refusal.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 8 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

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

Resolved (unanimously) that Members were minded to refuse the application for the following reason:

There was no direct access to private external amenity space.

Resolved (by 6 votes to 3) that Members were minded to refuse the application for the following reason:

Lack of on-site parking for future occupiers.

Councillor Smart proposed, and Councillor Nethsingha seconded, implementing the major decision protocol. The Committee would give a minded to refuse decision which would be brought back for review at a future committee.

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to implement the major decision protocol and were minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

       i.          The proposal has no direct access to a private external amenity area for units 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate that 10 units can be accommodated on the site in a form that secures an acceptable level of amenity space for future occupants. The proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed submission, July 2013 (submitted March 2014) as amended by the Inspectors’ Main Modification policy 50.

     ii.          The proposal has no car parking for future occupiers, apart from the disabled/visitor car parking space. This will increase parking pressures on nearby streets and therefore be detrimental to amenity of nearby residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 & 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed submission, July 2013 (submitted March 2014) as amended by the Inspectors’ Main Modification policies 55 & 57.

The case officer will produce a follow up report concerning the potential reasons for refusal for the members’ consideration at the next committee.