Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for the redevelopment of the site for new college
accommodation. The proposal includes demolition of 1-12 Croft Gardens and the
existing storage and garage buildings on site. No 27 Barton Road is the only
building proposed to be retained on site. The site is proposed to be
redeveloped to include 3 crescent buildings which form a set piece. The two
buildings which run perpendicular to the road are proposed to be graduate
family accommodation. The block to the south is proposed to be graduate rooms.
A further building is proposed to the front of the site adjacent to 29 Barton
Road. This would also provide graduate rooms.
The Senior Planner
updated her report by referring to details on the amendment sheet:
Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:
Conditions are to be amended as follows:
18. Prior to occupation of the development, a plan indicating the
positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Boundary treatments to adjoining gardens should include sufficient gaps (150mm
X 150mm) to allow access for hedgehogs. The boundary treatment shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation
or the bringing into use of the development (or other timetable agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority) and retained as approved thereafter.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate boundary treatment is implemented in
the interests of visual amenity and privacy and to ensure it allows movement of
hedgehogs (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 57, 59 and 70).
25. Trigger now prior to occupation.
33. Prior to occupation a plan shall be provided detailing the full
extent of the woodland area to the rear of the site. This agreed area of the
site shall not be available as amenity space and shall only be accessed for
upkeep and maintenance purposes. Details of the means of controlling access
(for example a fence and gate) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and installed in accordance with the approved
details prior to the occupation of the development and retained thereafter.
Reason: to prevent noise, disturbance and loss of privacy to 4C
Millington Road (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 56 and 57).
The Senior Planner
proposing a new condition restricting the accommodation to King’s College and
sought delegated powers to confirm the wording after Committee.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following:
· The
Co-Chair of the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum.
· A
local resident.
· Mr Dadge (Agent for local residents who were objecting).
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
The National Planning Policy
Framework was clear on the need for consultation. The South Newnham
Neighbourhood had been excluded, which was an injustice.
ii.
The building did not protect or
enhance the area so the application should be refused.
iii.
The Applicant’s report was based
on old information from the 1980s. The Buildings of Local Interest (BLIs) were
not in good condition.
iv.
The existing site was a haven for wildlife.
v.
Expressed concern about:
a.
Noise and disturbance to
neighbours as the new building would only be 15m away from neighbours.
b.
The application would be too high,
overbearing and out of scale with the area.
c.
Loss of privacy.
Dr Carne (representing King’s College (Applicant)) addressed the
Committee in support of the application.
Councillor Cantrill ((Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application:
i.
The existing buildings had contributed to the West
Cambridge Conservation Area as evidenced in various ways:
a.
Buildings were given BLI status.
b.
Historic England had requested the existing
building be retained on-site.
c.
The current buildings were not in good condition or
maintained by the owner (Kings College).
ii.
The new scheme would not contribute to the
character of the area.
a.
Overdevelopment of the site had compromised the
scheme. Intensification of the site (through the proposal) meant there was too
much on it. The Applicant was trying to fit in more buildings and open space than
the site could accommodate.
b.
Expressed concern about building height and
massing.
c.
The new design would not meet the standard of the
old one.
d.
Trees and residential amenity were also factors to
consider.
Councillor Green proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
by deleting condition 33.
This amendment was carried
by 5 votes to 3.
Councillor Sargeant proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to require
effective Proctoral parking control to avoid
spill-out parking into the neighbouring streets.
The Senior Planner agreed to amend condition wording to limit Proctoral parking approval to 8 cars.
The Committee:
Members sought clarification on whether affordable housing should be
provided as part of the application. The Development Manager recommended
deferring the application so officers could investigate whether affordable
housing should be provided. A report would be brought back to Committee in
future.
Unanimously
resolved to defer the application.