A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

14/1382/FUL - Land Rear Of 268 Queen Ediths Way

Meeting: 04/02/2015 - Planning (Item 21)

21 14/1382/FUL : Land Rear Of 268 Queen Ediths Way pdf icon PDF 164 KB

Minutes:

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought refusal for the erection of a residential development consisting of 1 x 5 bedroom house and 6 x 4 bedroom houses, along with internal access road, car, cycle parking, with hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Committee received written representation from Peter Mckeown in support of the application, who was also present to speak in support of the application.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Margaret Prosser.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

     i.        Advised the Committee that she was speaking on behalf of local Queen Ediths’ residents.

    ii.        The refusal of the application supported the protection of the following:

·               City boundaries

·               Green open spaces

·               Wild life

·               General way of life.

   iii.        The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the City’s urban edge of the surrounding area.

  iv.        Would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

   v.        Stated that the proposals were in direct conflict of the 2006 Local Plan and National Planning Policy Guidelines.

  vi.        Acknowledged that family homes but do not meet the housing needs set out by the Local Plan. 

 

Councillor Ashton addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

     i.        This application is not just about the loss of a few trees.

    ii.        A large number of trees were destroyed before the application had been considered. Officers were sent then to stop the work.

   iii.        The area is of scientific interest, with a yearly walk to look at the bats and glow worms.

  iv.        The proposed development would have a detrimental impact to the local area.

   v.        Not the right location for the development and would have an negative impact on the neighbouring gardens.

  vi.        A survey carried out from an independent consultant has determined that this application does not meet the Local Plan Guidelines.

 vii.        The proposed development would create an increase in traffic to the local area and the proposed additional junction would be an increase hazard.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 Votes to 1 vote ) to refuse the application for full planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the condition recommended by the officer.

 

Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

 

On page 228-229, the Recommendation should read:

 

1.      REFUSE for the following reasons:

 

1.   The introduction of development on this edge of city site, which has an important role in providing a buffer and transition between the urban environment and designated protected sites to the east and south, would, by virtue of its incongruous scale, intrusive and unsympathetic design and angled layout of the buildings, have a significantly detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the site, and setting of the city. The proposed design would also appear out of character with the existing built form along Queen Edith's Way and in doing so introduce an alien form of development adjacent to Lime Kiln Road. For these reasons the proposed development in conflict with policies 3/2, 3/4, and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), and government guidance the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

2.   The proposed development would result in the loss of five trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders and several others trees along the eastern and southern boundary which are group protected. As a group these trees make a significant contribution to the character of this edge of city site. Given the limited size of the amenity space associated with the houses it is likely that future residents will be pressured into having to remove/reduce the size of these and other trees. The removal of trees from the site would expose the development to both the surrounding area and the dwellings to the west in Queen Edith's Way. In so doing, the development would have a detrimental effect on the character of the site and the contribution it makes to the wider setting of the city and would adversely affect the residential amenity of occupiers in Queen Edith's Way. The development would be contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7and 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and Government Guidance in section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

3.   The proposed development would due to the angled layout of dwellings and scale of development, create a walled barrier which would enclose the rear gardens of dwellings in Queen Edith's Way and have an adverse effect on outlook from these dwellings. The rear elevation of the proposed dwellings would also contain windows which would directly overlook the rear gardens of the existing dwellings such that it would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the existing residents in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed development would create an adverse sense of enclosure on the existing residents and cause loss of privacy to gardens that are not currently overlooked. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/4 and 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

4.   The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, education and life-long learning facilities, waste facilities, waste management and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 8/3 and 10/1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012

 

2.      In the event that the application is refused, and an     Appeal is lodged against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority is sought to allow officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development