Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
74 20/0050/FUL - 54A Cherry Hinton Road PDF 141 KB
Minutes:
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 1st
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.