Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of 3 dwellings on land to the rear of 551-553 Newmarket Road, Cambridge CB5 8PA.

 

The Committee noted small errors in the text of the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer stated that it would be possible to amend the conditions to require obscured glazing to the first floor window that objectors considered to overlook neighbours.

 

It had been suggested that there was a covenant on this land and the Principal Planning Officer stated that this was not a planning cionsideration.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Pauline Turner, Mark Turner and Mark Howe

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

             i.        The process was unfair and objectors had not had sufficient time to plan their objections.

            ii.        The process had been uncomfortable.

           iii.        Other application for development in the area had been refused.

          iv.        Proposed build line was very close to existing buildings.

           v.        Contradicts earlier decisions.

          vi.        Would result in loss of amenity, light and privacy.

         vii.        Would result in a feeling of enclosure.

       viii.        Would dominate the area.

          ix.        Would be closer to the existing properties than suggested by the plans as they were based on original plans and did not show current position.

           x.        Unacceptable overlooking.

          xi.        Plan contravenes Local Plan.

         xii.        Would result in overlooking and loss of light.

       xiii.        Site plan was incorrect.

       xiv.        Nearby bungalow would suffer intrusion and loss of daylight.

        xv.        Loss of tranquil setting.

       xvi.        Adverse impact on wildlife.

 

The Committee expressed concerns about the vehicle access to the site. Concerns were raised about cyclist and pedestrian safety when using the narrow access road. Concerns were raised about access for emergency vehicles.

 

The Chair suggested deferring the application until the highways department had provided satisfactory answers to the following questions:

 

     i.        Did the width of the access road offer safe passage for all users?

    ii.        Was there sufficient provision for cyclists and pedestrian users?

   iii.        Was the width sufficient for service, emergency and construction vehicles?

  iv.        Would the egress conflict with the nearby crossing or it’s visibility?

   v.        Would there be an impact on the nearby bus stop?

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0, with 1 abstention) to defer the application.