Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
91 19/0718/REM - 295-301 Histon Road PDF 192 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for reserved matters
(layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of 27 residential
units including affordable dwellings following demolition
of existing buildings together with associated infrastructure pursuant
to application 15/0519/OUT.
The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment
sheet and revising the recommendation to remove condition 8.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from 3 local residents:
i.
Did not object to the development
in principle, but queried why plots 9 and 18 had to be wedged up against the
boundary. This was bad planning.
ii.
Took issue with the Applicant’s
description of the proposed buildings.
iii.
The development would impact on
neighbouring properties.
iv.
Requested the application be
deferred to allow the Developer time to consider Objector’s comments and
possibly amend the application.
v.
Flats opposite Tavistock Road were
too high at 3-5 storeys and would impact on (existing) neighbouring properties.
They would:
a.
Be inappropriate for the character
of the area.
b.
Impact on neighbours’ amenity
space.
c.
Cause overlooking and loss of
privacy.
vi.
Queried if the building
orientation could be altered by 180 degrees if the height could not. The
building could then overlook trees and open spaces instead of peoples’ living
spaces.
vii.
Mature trees in the area attracted
many species of birds and wildlife.
Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Sheil (Ward
Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Was speaking on behalf of residents from 305, 309,
and 311 Histon Road.
a.
They understood the need for housing in the area.
b.
Broadly supported the scheme, but had some
concerns.
ii.
Plot 9 and 18 needed to be carefully considered at
the outline planning stage in 2015/16.
iii.
The buildings and garages on Plots 9 and 18 were
“jammed up against the boundary”. Queried why the property on Plot 9 was
positioned where it was and if it could be moved away from the boundary.
Suggested moving Plot 18 garage away from boundary to increase the internal
space for new residents.
iv.
Queried if building heights were appropriate for
Plots 9 and 18. Suggested the building on Plot 18 should be a bungalow, not a
multi-storey building, as it was a windfall site.
The Committee Manager read out a written statement submitted by Councillor Payne (Ward
Councillor – City Council):
i.
As a
City Councillor for Castle ward which includes the McManus Estate, she was
supportive of the principle of design for 259-301 Histon Road and its inclusion
of 40% affordable housing.
ii.
Stated
her appreciation to the Guy Turvill for his efforts to work with residents to
minimise the damage and vandalism occurring on site.
iii.
Wished
to request that further consideration be given to two aspects of the proposed.
a.
Height
and proximity to Tavistock Road. The suggestion of three storey apartments
would mean these houses become significantly overlooked, greatly reducing the
quality of life of existing residents.
Three storey blocks are also out of keeping with the surrounding
properties on the McManus Estate.
b.
Preservation
of trees forming the boundary between application site and Tavistock Road. The
row of conifer trees between the application site and the houses on Tavistock
Road form a boundary, offering noise protection and privacy to residents. They were also a haven for wildlife. These trees were already damaged by vehicles
entering and leaving the development.
While the application regards these trees to be of limited quality,
their preservation was important for the privacy of existing residents.
Requested this tree boundary be maintained and improved before the new
development was occupied. Queried who would be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of the conifer trees.
Councillor Green
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include informatives:
i.
Signage
to prevent poor parking.
ii.
Boundary
treatment in the landscape condition.
This amendments were carried
unanimously.
Councillor Baigent
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a balcony
screen condition.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
Councillor
Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative regarding hedgehogs.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; [and]
ii.
the removal of Condition 8; [and]
iii.
the following additional
condition:
a. a balcony screen condition;
[and]
iv.
informatives included on the
planning permission in respect of:
a. Signage
prevent poor parking.
b. Boundary
treatment in the landscape condition.
c. an
informative regarding hedgehogs.