Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
45 20/01033/FUL - 12 Gilmour Road PDF 117 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for a ground floor extension and access
gate alterations within the building curtilage and projection of first floor
sitting room window onto the existing terrace. To the rear lower section, the
existing decked area was to be changed into habitable space and a square
skylight would be added over this area to fully enclose it. Full height sliding
glazed doors would be fitted behind the existing rear gate and railings which
are to be retained with the gate swing being adjusted so it would swing
outwards rather than inwards.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Accordia
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Would be speaking on behalf of
residents who had objected to this application.
ii.
The Committee had previously
refused an application which contained elements of this proposal.
iii.
Requested the Committee refused
the application.
iv.
Believed
the Planning Officer’s recommendation and Conservation Officer’s opinion appeared
to be influenced by the Inspector’s report which dismissed the appeal.
v.
The Inspector concluded the ground
floor and first floor elements of the proposal would not detract much from the
architectural uniformity of the dwellings in the area; disagreed with this
statement as outlined in the submitted objections.
vi.
The Inspector gave no
consideration to the effect on car and cycle parking or loss of amenity space;
yet the Inspector did not grant planning permission for the ground and first
elements alone through a split decision.
vii.
When considering the previous
application, the Committee assessed the negative impact on the wider community
through loss of amenity value against the benefit to an individual property
owner. Believed this assessment remained as critical and it was residents who
represented the broader social and community impact on Accordia.
viii.
A key element of the sense of
community amongst residents was they had brought into the style of the
development; the landscape was dense with overlooking. The internal open
spaces, terraces and balconies were an essential feature for the occupant of
each dwelling.
ix.
The application would restrict the
open space within the footprint and would leave minimal space for a car which
could lead to on street parking. Storage
capacity would be lost for such as items as a bicycle.
x.
Residents championed the design,
style, and layout of Accordia.
xi.
Stated
the achievement of the Article 4 direction, designation of the Conservation
Area, the recently approved Design Guide, and the parking scheme were the
result of initiatives by residents working with City Council officers to
preserve the integrity of the site.
xii.
The application was unacceptable
on its own merits and would bring no public benefit.
xiii.
If the application were approved
similar applications would be repeated which could increase on street parking
and damage the internal open spaces that were an essential element to the site.
xiv.
Accordia
should remain a model for good architectural practice.
xv.
Believed
the application contravened planning policies 56 b and f, 58 g, 82 b and the Cycle Parking
Guide SPD
Ms Richardson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application.
Councillor
Robertson addressed the Committee about the application on behalf of Councillor
Thornburrow (Trumpington Ward Councillor).
i.
Represented those residents who had objected to the
application. Some points raised would be theirs, other points highlighted were
Councillor’s Thornburrow’ s personal point of view.
ii.
The
relevant policies to reference were policies 55 (responding to the context), 58, a, b, c, f, and g
(altering and extending existing buildings) and 61 (conservation and
enhancement of Cambridge’s historic environment).
iii.
Gilmour Road was one of the mews streets in the eastern
quarter. The houses had been designed to face towards the mews street for
primary access and to the landscape side for amenity.
iv.
Each dwelling was designed to have a discreet on-plot
car parking and secure cycle provision with shared access to be free of car
parking.
v.
A distinctive theme in the design of the buildings
was the contrast of solid and void which believed had been achieved with care.
vi.
The covered space to the side of the dwelling had
the added benefit of enabling glimpses through to the garden behind.
vii.
The profile of the terrace was simple, sharply
defined and uncluttered at all levels. Elevations of the terrace displayed a
strong consistency in appearance.
viii.
The proposed ground floor extension would infill
the rear of the covered space and unbalance the solid to void relationship.
Glimpses through to the garden would be lost.
ix.
The remaining space may be of sufficient
size to park a car but would not allow for the additional parking of cycles,
refuse storage and recycling bins. Storage of other domestic items would be
compromised.
x.
In practice the application would probably result
in the car being parked in the street.
xi.
Adequate cycle parking standards would not be met.
xii.
The existing ground floor plans showed the front
doors to the properties on Gilmore Road were not straight off the road but off
the car port. The design of the single gate ensured the car was parked towards
the rear of the space and created covered clear access and accessibility to the
main door.
xiii.
The application proposed the gate was to be doubled
to allow the car to be parked away from the glazed wall of the extension and
closer to the road. This would reduce the area in front of the main door making
it less accessible to enter the house.
xiv.
The main external amenity spaces were across the
whole of the rear of the property, some at ground floor level and some at first
floor level linked by a staircase and walkway. The proposed ground floor
extension and that to the first floor living room
would reduce the amenity space by over 40%. The was 34sqm of amenity space
would be reduced to 14sqm, a considerable loss for a family home.
xv.
Stated the proposed rear elevation was inaccurate
and misleading, the impression given is that the appearance at ground floor
would not change but the formation of the living accommodation behind the gates
would be clearly seen and incongruous.
xvi.
The full width infill would lead to the loss of the
exposed brickwork, separation, and the openness to the side of the house. The
pattern and strong rhythm between the fenestration and the gates would be lost
harming the appearance and character of the dwelling, terrace, and the
distinctive enclosure to the communal garden.
xvii.
The outlook from within the extended living space
out to the garden would be through the metal gates immediately to the front of
the window; believed this to be poor design and would not be acceptable on a
new build scheme.
xviii.
Pressure to remove the gates in future would be
inevitable.
xix.
Access from the house to the garden had been
carefully provided for in the original design by the principle room opening on
to the internal courtyard space and then into the garden. The application would
result in the access directly from the living room to the garden, a less
practicable arrangement.
xx.
Overall, the application would reduce the
flexibility of the home for future occupants and would not represent a public
benefit.
xxi.
While the Inspector concluded that neither of the
ground or first floor elements would detract from the architectural uniformity
of the dwelling, believed the reasons outlined in this objection had shown this
would detract from the uniformity.
xxii.
The Inspector gave no consideration to the effect
on car and cycle parking and did not exercise discretion to grant planning
permission for the ground and first floor elements through a split decision
which would have been possible.
xxiii.
With reference to the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 the
proposed extension has not responded positively to the distinctive context and
failed to comply with policy 55.
xxiv.
The
extension was not a high-quality design as required; and did not comply with
policy 58, a,
b, c, f, and g.
xxv.
The
harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area conflicts with
policy 61and there was no public benefit.
xxvi.
The proposal was unacceptable.
The Committee:
Unanimously
resolved to defer the
consideration of the application, pending the submission of further detailed
drawings by the planning officer and / or a visit to the site.
36 20/01033/FUL - 12 Gilmour Road PDF 117 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Item adjourned
until 10 September committee.