Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of existing commercial unit and the provision of 6 residential units along with access and associated landscaping and works.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from residents of Vinery Road.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

     i.        Speaking on behalf of residents of Belgrave Road and Vinery Road.

    ii.        There were a number of concerns such as, noise, privacy, security and parking.

   iii.        Noise levels were currently low as the industrial building was rarely used.

  iv.        Number 15 and 17 would be overlooked.

   v.        Parking pressure would increase.

  vi.        Would result in gross overdevelopment.

 vii.        Change of use should not be approved.

viii.        Impact on a quiet neighbourhood.

  ix.        Design out of keeping with others in the area.

 

Matt Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee regarding the application as follows:

     i.        Consultation with local residents had been poor.

    ii.        Work had already started on site.

   iii.        Boundary disputes had already begun.

  iv.        A protected tree had been lost.

   v.        Scale and massing of proposal was out of keeping with the area.

  vi.        Density of development was too great.

 vii.        Rents likely to be high and this would lead to over occupation.

viii.        High occupancy rates would result in a lot of noise.

  ix.        Would result in considerable harm to local residents.

   x.        Unsafe overdevelopment.

  xi.        Proposal lacks windows.

 xii.        Single staircase design would be unsafe if there was a fire.

 

The Committee had some concerns about the application as follows:

     i.        The relationship between the proposed site and the currently unused industrial unit.

    ii.        The lack of ventilation to the internal space of the proposed development.

   iii.        Refuse arrangements.

  iv.        Quality of the design for a development in a conservation area.

   v.        Cramped living space caused by the desire to maximise the footprint of the proposed building.

 

The Committee were concerned that the visuals available to them made it difficult to make a decision on the application.

 

Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed and Councillor Hipkin seconded a motion to defer application until improved visuals and plans were available.

 

The motion was lost by 4 votes to 3 and 2 abstentions.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1 and 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed development, by virtue of: the overly cramped internal living spaces within the dwellings; the need to ensure windows to upper floor rooms in the front and rear elevations are high level or obscure glazed; the high degree of enclosure of external amenity spaces; the need to provide tall screens to the balconies/terraces on the front elevation; and the lack of natural ventilation to apartment 1 would constitute poor design that would fail to provide a satisfactory quality of living environment and standard of amenity for future occupiers. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

 

2.   Due to the scale, footprint and massing of the proposed building, the development would fail to have a positive and enhanced impact on the character and appearance of the locality within the Conservation Area, and therefore is contrary to Policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).