Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
196 15/0596/FUL - Land R/O 268 Queen Ediths Way PDF 212 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for erection
of 3No. five bed houses, internal access road, car and
cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.
Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from Mr Jackson.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to objections made by residents as listed
in the Planning Officer’s report.
ii.
Referred to comments made by the Urban Design Team
and Conservation Officer as listed in the Planning Officer’s report. For
example, overlooking of Queen Edith’s Way residents’ gardens.
iii.
Took issue with details in the Applicant’s
drawings.
iv.
Suggested the development was unsuitable.
Councillor Ashton
(Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to the previous committee discussion of
the last application.
ii.
Agreed with the Officer’s recommendation for
approval.
iii.
The design was out of character with the area.
iv.
Trees had been cleared from the site to make way
for proposed housing.
Councillor Smart
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the reasons for
refusal be split and voted upon separately.
Original recommendation:
1.
The proposed development would, by virtue of its
unsympathetic scale, bulky design and loss of trees, have a significantly
detrimental impact on the character and setting of this edge of city site and
surrounding rural context. The proposed development would result in an alien
form of development that would appear incongruous from the rear gardens of the
properties in Queen Edith’s Way and unduly diminish the rural character of this
green edge from Lime Kiln Road. The proposal fails to sympathetically respond
to the site context. For these reasons the proposed development conflicts with
policies 3/2, 3/4, 3/12 and 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and
government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2.
The proposed development would, due to its angled
layout, three storey scale and proximity to the western boundary, introduce a form
of development that would cause overlooking, the perception of being overlooked
and introduce an dominant and bulky form of development close to the rear
gardens of the existing dwellings in Queen Edith’s Way. As such, the proposal
would have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of
adjacent residents in terms of loss of privacy and enclosure. The proposal
would also, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views
over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking.
In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in
a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the
proposed development conflicts with policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge
Local Plan (2006).
The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to
3) to
discount reason 1.
The Committee resolved (by 6 votes to
0) to
split reason 2 as follows:
1.
The proposed development would, due to its angled
layout, three storey scale and proximity to the western boundary, introduce a
form of development that would cause overlooking, the perception of being
overlooked and introduce an dominant and bulky form of development close to the
rear gardens of the existing dwellings in Queen Edith’s Way. As such, the
proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential
amenity of adjacent residents in terms of loss of privacy and enclosure.
2.
The proposal would also, by virtue of the louvered
screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3
which would result in inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed
modest rear gardens, this would also result in a poor quality living
environment for future residents. For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts
with policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).
The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to discount (new)
reason 1.
The Committee resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to accept the
following amended reason for refusal (reference to policy 3/4 removed as (new)
reason 1 had been discounted):
The
proposal would, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2, angle views
over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in inter-overlooking.
In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this would also result in
a poor quality living environment for future residents. For these reasons, the
proposed development conflicts with policies 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge
Local Plan (2006).
The Committee:
Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to refuse the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reason set out below:
The proposal would, by virtue of the louvered screens on plots 1 and 2,
angle views over the rear gardens of plots 2 and 3 which would result in
inter-overlooking. In conjunction with the proposed modest rear gardens, this
would also result in a poor quality living environment for future residents.
For these reasons, the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/7 and
3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).