Issue - meetings

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.

Item adjourned until 10 September committee.