Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of existing building and construction of three dwellings.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Fitzwilliam Road [speaking on behalf of 21 residents who opposed this proposal]:

      i.          1 Fitzwilliam is an important corner of the Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area.  Many trees, some with Tree Preservation Orders [TPOs], and the open gardens contributed to the sense of green space. The importance of the Conservation Area and its public amenity has increased since the surrounding developments of Kaleidoscope and Cambridge Assessment.

     ii.          The rejection of the previous application [in 2015] was upheld at appeal for two reasons:  the loss of amenity for neighbours and the detrimental impact on the Conservation Area. This should be the starting point when considering any new application.

   iii.          Specific concerns:

a.    This proposal, though smaller in scale than the previous one, still had accommodation for up to thirty two people in three terraced houses.

b.    It protruded beyond neighbouring building lines.

c.    Was over-sized relative to the site and sub-divided this corner plot resulting in tiny gardens dominated by cycle sheds and bin stores.

d.    The design reflected the modern buildings opposite in Kaleidoscope and neither referenced nor complemented the neighbouring buildings in the Conservation Area.

   iv.          The size and configuration strongly suggested an intention to subdivide into multiple occupancy housing in the future. Any such move would have a hugely negative impact on the Conservation Area.

    v.          On the potential loss of amenity for neighbours, parking is of particular concern. The Cambridge Local Plan of 2018 was crystal clear on parking. For C3 dwellings in a controlled parking area the ratio must be no more than one parking space per dwelling. This could only be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. There were none in this case. It was close to a bus route, the railway station and just a short walk or cycle from the city centre. This application sought seven spaces for three dwellings, over twice the permitted ratio. It also required the loss of five heavily used on-street residents’ parking places. This would be grossly unfair for existing residents.

   vi.          The plot was on a three-way corner which was already a dangerous junction. Since the opening of Kaleidescope and the expansion of Cambridge Assessment, the roads were much more congested at peak times than implied by Highways Department.

 vii.          The 2015 scheme did not propose removing any TPO trees, so it was unreasonable and unacceptable that this (smaller) scheme destroyed a protected tree. Expressed concern the Tree Officer has seemingly waved through the removal of one of the iconic protected sycamores and the loss of many other trees and garden landscaping.

viii.          Suggested the application did not satisfy Policy 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan [designs that enhance or preserve the character of a Conversation Area].

Mr Seamark (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) submitted a statement to the Committee about the application:

      i.          Made a representation for two reasons:

a.    Had received a number of concerns raised by residents. Had not received any representation in favour of the development.

b.    The objections raised show there was a risk of the Council contravening, or at least appearing to contravene, its own Local Plan. Residents who wanted to seek planning permission must abide by the Local Plan. Both City Council and County Council must respect the Local Plan, and be seen to respect  it; otherwise they risked undermining  it, with the associated likelihood of increased appeals and objections further congesting an already overstretched planning service.

     ii.          The main objections raised were:

a.    Residents raised concerns that the proposed development was not in line with the character of the Conservation Area.

b.    Removal of a tree subject to the TPO and the risk to a second, along with the removal of 9 other unprotected trees. This appeared to conflict with policy 52 of the Local Plan.

c.    Parking spaces were in short supply. The proposal acknowledged this by seeking to assign more than the recommended number of spaces per household, yet this did not create more space on the streets: it required removal of spaces elsewhere.

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

      i.          Overdevelopment of the site which is in Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area.

     ii.          The application was out of character with the area and did not respond to context.

   iii.          The application failed to meet Local Plan policies 56 [integrated into its surroundings] and 57 [landscape impacts and available views].

   iv.          Expressed concern over loss of trees, particularly T2.T1 and T2 should be retained, there was no reason to cut down these local landmarks.

    v.          Asked the Committee to confirm the TPOs regardless of whether the application was approved or not.

Councillor Jones (Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Took issue with officer support for over provision of on-site parking. Only three spaces were required, not four, as per the number of dwellings. There were good local transport links.

     ii.          Traffic and congestion levels [including taxi and parking space usage] would be exacerbated by the development.

   iii.          Clarendon Road and Fitzwilliam Road were used as rat runs to avoid traffic in other areas.

   iv.          There was an absence of traffic survey work by the County Council. So it was unclear to date whether there are any “significant safety implications” for local residents as defined under Para 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

    v.          To conclude, increasing motor traffic movements and the loss of residents' parking bays should be seen as unacceptable in an area experiencing increasing traffic pressures from other recent developments. 

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include informatives regarding:

      i.          Hedgehog friendly fencing.

     ii.          Residents' parking not being available to new builds so it was clear to the developers that they could not access street parking in the controlled parking zone by applying for a residents' permit.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer plus two extra informatives relating to:

      i.          Hedgehog friendly fencing.

     ii.          Residents' parking not being available to new builds so it was clear to the developers that they could not access street parking in the controlled parking zone by applying for a residents' permit.

With delegated authority to Officers to draft the informatives in consultation with the Chair and Spokes.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.