Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 3.No four bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Planning Officer updated his report by referring to conditions listed on amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Queen Edith’s Way.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Loss of trees. The application would be visible through gaps in the trees.

     ii.          Loss of view and light for neighbours due to visually dominating design.

   iii.          Street lighting would be placed on Lime Kiln Road (for the first time).

   iv.          The application would be located near nature reserves and the green corridor that linked them. It could have a negative on these and the green belt.

    v.          Referred to paragraph 8.5 of the Officer’s report: “Therefore, my professional opinion remains that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of this unique edge of city site”.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Had no objections to developing the site in principle, but this should be done through an appropriate design in a unique area of the city.

     ii.          The Planning Committee had been invited to attend a site visit prior to considering the application.

   iii.          Residents still had concerns regarding:

a.    Overlooking.

b.    Loss of light.

c.    Impact on local neighbour reserves.

d.    Travel safety as the application would be located on a school travel route.

   iv.          The developer had not engaged with residents. Concerns could have been addressed if this had occurred.

    v.          Trees had been cleared from the site without permission.

   vi.          There were 35 conditions to be met in order for the application to be built. Queried why so many were needed if the development was considered acceptable.

 

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to remove all permitted development rights from the site.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Chair adopted the adjourned decision making protocol, so the application would be brought back to the next committee.

 

Unanimously resolved to defer to the application to allow further discussion of a potential reason for refusal as follows:

 

‘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 and unduly diminish the rural character of this green edge from Lime Kiln Road. The proposal therefore fails to sympathetically respond to the site context and setting of the city. 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’

 

The Committee also requested clarification of the relevance of the status of the ‘East Green Corridor’ referred to by the Ward Councillor, Councillor Ashton.