Issue - meetings

Councillor Thornburrow left the table to speak to the Committee as a Ward Member; she took no part in the determination of the application.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a bike store.

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

      i.         Spoke on behalf of a substantial number of residents whose objections centred on the protection of the unique qualities of the Barrow Road Conservation Area.

    ii.         All houses on Barrow Road are situated on substantial plots, bike stores did not need to be sited forward of the building line.

   iii.         A recent survey of residents showed that most were enthusiastic cyclists and had bike storage at the back or side of the house or a simple rack at the front and not a built store in the front garden.

  iv.         The original application to refurbish the property included a bike shed at the front of the property but this was removed on the advice of the Planning Officer at the time.  The bike store could have been included within the envelope of the property but the owner chose not to do this.

    v.         Granting permission on the condition that the bike shed was hidden behind a hedge was relying on nature to conceal the permanent structure. Questioned how the Planning Officer would monitor this condition in the future.

  vi.         Expressed concerns that this application would set a precedent for future development of permanent structures forward of the building line, contrary to planning guidance.

 vii.         Barrow Road was modelled on the open streetscape of the garden suburb movement.

viii.         The proposal had the potential to adversely harm the character and appearance of Barrow Road.  It did not comply with policy 61 of the Local Plan.

  ix.         Asked the Committee to maintain the protection afforded by the Conservation Area guidelines and refuse the application.

Graham Riley (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Thornburrow (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.               Neighbours had referred to previous planning application, the previous works undertaken were a direct reason for this application.

ii.             This was development which required planning permission and should comply with Conservation Area Appraisal.

iii.            Buildings and structures should not come forward in front of the building line as it would detract from the Conservation Area.

iv.           Hedges in a Conservation Area were not protected and could therefore be removed at any time and would leave the bike store looking quite prominent.

v.             The bike store materials should be similar to those used in the area.

vi.           The justification for the application was to encourage cycling in Cambridge. However she referred to the resident’s survey which showed that half of resident’s already used bikes and that there was a trend for young families to have bike stores at the rear of the property or in the garage or a bike rack at the front of the house. She disputed the contention that putting a bike shed at the front of the house would encourage people to use bikes.

vii.          The application had to be considered against the public benefit.  There was no public benefit to have the bike shed at the front of the site.

A condition was proposed that the hedge be retained at a minimum height whilst the bike store was in situ and that it would have to be replaced if the hedge become damaged or diseased.  The exact wording would be delegated to officers.

This amendment was carried by 3 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

The Committee:

Resolved (2 votes to 2 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) 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 following additional condition requiring retention of the hedge at a minimum height of 1.5 metres, and its replacement if it dies, or becomes damaged.