Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
59 16/1272/S73 - Citylife House, Sturton Street PDF 129 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received a Section 73 application to vary condition number 2 of permission
14/1252/FUL.
The application
sought approval to permit revised cycle and bin storage locations, revised internal
configurations and revised location of plant from the eastern elevation to the
roof.
The Planning Officer updated his report recommendation by referring to
pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet.
The Access Officer made the following points in response to the
Committee’s request for information about access:
i.
The entrance was acceptable.
ii.
The gradient of the ramp from access paths was
fairly steep, but acceptable in accordance with personal evacuation plan
criteria. The ramps/paths were an existing feature so not a material
consideration in the application.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following:
· Resident
of Edward Street.
· York Street.
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to Local Plan policies
referenced in the officer’s report and suggested they had not been met.
ii.
Expressed concern about:
a.
The gradient of the paths used for
emergency access/egress. Queried if these complied with building and disability
regulations.
b.
Noise from the site.
c.
The treatment of open space in
Petersfield Ward.
d.
Planting on the building roof.
e.
Intensification of site use.
Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application.
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to various concerns expressed by residents
such as the impact of roof planting on the area.
ii.
Paths had been built on areas of general open space, they should have been built on areas controlled by
the applicant. As such, the paths should be removed and relocated.
iii.
Officers had given advice that planting should be
located on the side of the building, which the applicant had ignored and built
on the roof. This was inappropriate.
iv.
The building did not meet Conservation Area
policies such as 4/39. Referred to comments from the Conservation Team as
listed in the officer’s report.
v.
Asked for the application to be refused.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved to reject the
officer recommendation to approve the application.
Unanimously
resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the
following reasons:
i.
The plant and its associated screening, because of
its length, height and visibility from surrounding streets and from St
Matthew’s Piece, appears as a cumbersome addition to the roof top of the
existing building and is of poor design. Its presence is incongruous and the external
mirrored screen finish proposed would only serve to draw attention to it.
Painting the plant as a substitute for the screen would not be appropriate and
a condition seeking an alternative screening detail would not overcome the
impact of its presence. As such, the plant installation as existing and as
proposed with the mirrored screen finish would detract from the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and surrounding park and open space
contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/11. The harm would be less
than substantial to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole but
would not be outweighed by any identifiable public benefit arising from its
installation and is therefore contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012).
ii.
The proposed paths and associated spurs off the
east side of the building and within the protected open space and Conservation
Area unnecessarily fragment its configuration and are harmful to its former
soft grassed character and setting. The former character of the protected open
space provided a continuous grassed area connecting the protected open space
from the east of the building to the south side of the building and to the
remainder of St Matthew’s Piece. As a result of their installation, the paths
appear at odds with the former setting of the building within its landscaped
environment and reduce the flexibility of the open space for recreational use
by members of the public and users of the building. They do not serve to
enhance either the use or setting of the protected open space and only serve
the building for means of fire escape. As such, the paths are contrary to
Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 4/2 and 4/11 and are contrary to paragraph
134 of the NPPF (2012).
The City
Development Manager sought delegated authority to commence enforcement
proceedings as appropriate as per page 74 of the officer report. This was agreed nem con.