Issue - meetings

Councillor Thornburrow left the Committee table for the determination of this item taking no part in it other than to address the Committee as a Ward Councillor. She moved to the public seating area.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of existing indoor swimming pool and linking conservatory, and demolition of single storey garage and storage shed. Internal alterations to York House, including replacement of windows. Erection of 2 storey side extension containing private swimming pool and fitness room. Erection of detached single storey, oak framed garage and detached outbuildings.

 

The Planning Officer referred to amendments contained in the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Circulated an additional site plan.

     ii.          The property was a Building of Local Interest.

   iii.          A private leisure facility was proposed to be built.

   iv.          The proposal was a large addition, over 29 metres long, over 2 floors.

    v.          The position of the development along the boundary was troublesome.

   vi.          Referred to impacts detailed on the shadow diagrams during the month of March.

 vii.          Height, length and position of development would create shadowing.

viii.          Questioned if the development was fair or reasonable.

   ix.          Referred to pumps / boilers being positioned on the boundary and the potential for vibrations and noxious gas from these structures.

    x.          Development was contrary to the Southacre Conservation Area plan.

 

Alison Wilkinson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Thornburrow (Trumpington Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

i.                 Referred to Local Plan policies 55 and 58 and context of development.

ii.               The development was within the Southacre Conservation Area.

iii.             Development should preserve or enhance existing conservation Area. There were no public benefits which outweighed the harm proposed in this development to the neighbours of the Southacre Conservation Area.

iv.             The scale of the development was large and would double the footprint of the existing building.

v.              Increasing plot density.

vi.             Chaucer Road had a discreet character area.

vii.           Both properties were examples of Edwardian Arts and Craft buildings.

viii.         Questioned whether the development preserved the setting of both of the historical buildings. 

ix.             Referred to policy 197 of the NPPF.

 

The Committee took a vote on the officer’s recommendation and this was lost by 2 votes to 3.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

       i.          The proposal, by virtue of its bulk, scale, mass, proximity to 12 Chaucer Road, including the introduction of three boiler flues to the common boundary, would result in an un-neighbourly form of development, causing an unacceptable and overbearing impact, overshadowing and consequent loss of amenity to the occupiers of 12 Chaucer Road, contrary to policies 55 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

     ii.          The proposed development, by virtue of its bulk, scale and massing would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the South Acre conservation area, contrary to policies 55, 58 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).