Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Planning
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
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.
Report author: Charlotte Burton
Publication date: 11/05/2018
Date of decision: 25/04/2018
Decided at meeting: 25/04/2018 - Planning
Accompanying Documents: