Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a ground floor extension and access gate alterations within the building curtilage; projection of first floor sitting room window onto the existing terrace and erection of garden studio within the second floor terrace.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident speaking on behalf of himself and the Accordia Resident’s Association.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          The impact on neighbours would not be minimal as stated in the report.

     ii.          Design would be out of keeping with the area.

   iii.          Would result in loss of light, loss of privacy and overlooking for neighbours.

   iv.          Out of keeping with the original architect’s vision for the area.

    v.          Would have an impact of the social nature of the development.

   vi.          Would damage the overall sense of place.

 

Mark Richards (Applicant’s Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Thornburrow  (Trumpington Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application as follows:

 

       i.          Had been contacted by many residents who object to the application.

     ii.          Site was a Sterling Prize Winner and needed to be protected.

   iii.          Application contravenes Policy 51 as it does not respond to context.

   iv.          Application lacks information on elevations.

    v.          Impact on the rest of the terrace was unacceptable.

   vi.          Accordia Master Plan important to residents.

 vii.          Non-compliant with Article 4.

viii.          Palette of materials and colours proposed was unacceptable.

   ix.          External space needed to be preserved.

    x.          Non-compliant with policies 55, 56, 58, 61and 62.

   xi.          Loss of parking space.

 xii.          Application should have been considered by the design panel.

 

The Committee expressed agreement with Councillor Thornburrow’s comments and suggested that the application was non-compliant with polices 55, 56, 58 and 61.

 

The Committee suggested that a design guide for future application on this site was needed. It was agreed that this was not a matter for the Planning Committee but could be referred to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

The Committee:

 

Member requested that votes on reasons for refusal be taken separately as members expressed a view that some elements of the application were acceptable.

 

(First Floor Extension) projection of first floor sitting room window onto the existing terrace and erection of garden studio within the second floor terrace.

 

Resolved unanimously to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

(Ground Floor Extension) Ground floor extension and access gate alterations within the building curtilage

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 and 2 abstentions) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

The proposed second floor garden studio by virtue of its design, form, materials and its projection above the existing roofline of the dwelling would harm the cohesive architectural uniformity of the wider terrace and the Accordia development as a whole. The development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and this less than substantial harm is not outweighed by any public benefit. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 55, 56, 58 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF 2019.

 

The proposed ground floor infill element of the proposal would enclose an existing open area and thereby harm the cohesive architectural uniformity of the wider terrace and the Accordia development as a whole. The development would therefore neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and this less than substantial harm is not outweighed by any public benefit.

 

The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 55, 56, 58 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF 2019.