Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
63 19/0511/FUL - 10 Chaucer Road PDF 196 KB
Minutes:
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).