Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
21 14/1382/FUL : Land Rear Of 268 Queen Ediths Way 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