Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
139 18/0090/FUL - 63 New Street PDF 133 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the
demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of a building
comprising of three 2 bed units, six 1 bed units and one studio flat. The
proposal would provide one visitor/disabled parking space and 13 cycle parking
spaces.
Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillors sought
advice from the Legal Advisor on reasons that could be considered for refusal
of the application if they were minded to do so. The Legal Advisor said that amenity was a low risk reason for refusal,
parking was a higher risk one. He suggested not including it due to cost
implications to the Council if Officers tried to contest a decision that was
hard to defend. Several Committee Members were minded to support parking as a
possible reason for refusal as the application would exacerbate existing
parking pressure in the area. The Chair said that Highways Authority comments
in the report reflected advice to consider for housing estates in rural areas.
The comments had been made in January 2018, so were no longer relevant. They
had to be included in the Officer’s report as the comments had been made. The
Highways Authority were asked not to include generic comments more appropriate
to rural developments in future consultation responses. The Chair said National
Planning Policy Framework guidance on parking standards was a material
consideration for Planning Committee Members.
Councillor Hipkin volunteered to give evidence at an appeal if
parking was proposed as a reason for refusal.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 8 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.
The Chair decided that the possible reasons for refusal should be voted
on and recorded separately:
Resolved (unanimously) that Members were minded to refuse the
application for the following reason:
There was no
direct access to private external amenity space.
Resolved (by 6 votes to 3) that Members were minded to refuse the
application for the following reason:
Lack of on-site
parking for future occupiers.
Councillor Smart
proposed, and Councillor Nethsingha seconded, implementing the major decision
protocol. The Committee would give a minded to refuse decision which would be
brought back for review at a future committee.
Resolved (by 7
votes to 0) to implement
the major decision protocol and were minded to refuse the application contrary
to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
The
proposal has no direct access to a private external amenity area for units
3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate that 10
units can be accommodated on the site in a form that secures an acceptable
level of amenity space for future occupants. The proposal is therefore contrary
to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan
2014: Proposed submission, July 2013 (submitted March 2014) as amended by the
Inspectors’ Main Modification policy 50.
ii.
The
proposal has no car parking for future occupiers, apart from the
disabled/visitor car parking space. This will increase parking pressures on
nearby streets and therefore be detrimental to amenity of nearby residents. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4
& 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed submission, July 2013
(submitted March 2014) as amended by the Inspectors’ Main Modification policies
55 & 57.
The case officer
will produce a follow up report concerning the potential reasons for refusal
for the members’ consideration at the next committee.