Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for change of use from HMO (use class C4), single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension following demolition of rear extension. To create 4no. artists studios (use class B1), 2no. communal / gallery spaces (use class D1) and associated service provision. Retention of barbers premises (use class A1). Retention of 1no. studio flat as

caretaker's accommodation (use class C3).

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Cherry Hinton Road:

      i.         Would be significantly negatively impacted by the applicant’s proposed overbearing development.

    ii.         Was speaking on behalf of herself and the local Residents’ Association who were very concerned that their concerns had not been addressed.

a.    Over development - B1, C3, D1 together with the current A1 use on the footprint of a Victorian end of terrace house with a narrow garden was unacceptable.

b.    Loss of residential space.

c.    Scale and mass - This was far more than a typical ‘back of house extension’ as mentioned in ‘Local Character’ in the 'Design and Access Statement’. Although the design was described as one storey and in keeping with domestic scale it would protrude massively above the existing wall and fence lines and crosses the 45 degree line from speaker’s 1^st floor back bedroom.

d.    Loss of amenity –

1.                 No updated shadow statement to show the effect on 52 Cherry Hinton Road. Expressed concern that speaker’s right to light would be lost on the basis that artists require a minimum ceiling height of 2.4m for aesthetic purposes.

2.                 No plan to replace the trees already been lost to the barber shop car park, or the tree that will be lost to future development.

e.    Parking – The development would exacerbate existing problems. No parking study has been carried out. Spaces won’t cater for the number of users.

f.     Safety –

1.    The lane has a 3 ton carrying capacity so was unsuitable for delivery vehicles.

2.    In places there is no footpath and only space for a small vehicle to navigate. 

3.    There was no turning head or barriers to prevent customer access onto private property.

4.    No statement about safety of cyclists and pedestrians using the lane.

g.    Future use - There were no guarantees that the buildings will not be used for light industrial use in the future.

   iii.         Councillor Colin McGerty made the point on a site visit that there would be a ‘canyon of buildings’ in that section of the lane if the proposed development behind EACH goes ahead too. This reflects how under siege residents felt about development on these very small patches of land.

Ms Milligan (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

      i.         An informative to ensure residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s parking scheme.

    ii.         A condition to retain one accessible car parking space.

The amendments were carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use 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 including the amendments to include:

      i.         An informative to ensure that residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s parking scheme.

    ii.         A condition to retain one accessible car parking space.