Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a residential redevelopment comprising three link detached dwellings to the rear and one detached dwelling on the site frontage along with car and cycle parking and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building on the site.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·       Resident of Hurst Park Avenue.

·       Resident of Highworth Avenue.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

      i.          Following the death of the last owner, the property was in the hands of a developer who wanted to develop a garden that overlooked neighbours.

     ii.          The design was out of style with the character of the area.

   iii.          Expressed concern about the:

a.    Impact on wildlife in the area.

b.    Impact on neighbours’ amenity.

c.    The oppressive indoor living environment for residents and unattractive outlook for neighbours.

   iv.          Many neighbours had objected to the development:

a.    Loss of privacy.

b.    Parking concerns.

c.    Not a covid friendly development.

    v.          Asked for the developer to come back with a scheme that responded to the area, prioritised family housing and had fewer units on site.

 

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

      i.          Supported the recommendation and the reasons for refusal.

     ii.          Requested an additional reason for refusal: Highworth Avenue was a residential area not a city centre development as the Agent stated.

   iii.          There was a lack of amenity space as this was a garden development and people could not play in the road as they may have done in the past.

   iv.          The site could set an unsustainable precedent for demolition of houses and development of gardens in the area.

    v.          Negative impact on biodiversity.

   vi.          Highworth Avenue had highly individual properties that cumulatively made an arts and craft design style. The modern design style of the application failed to respond to context.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          reason for refusal 4 should reference additional vehicle movements;

     ii.          [New reason 5] The proposal has failed to demonstrate that it would not result in a net loss of biodiversity or that through mitigation no net loss or net gain is possible. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy 70 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and NPPF 2019 guidance, paragraph 170.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and amendments as follows:

      i.          reason for refusal number 4 should reference additional vehicle movements;

     ii.          [New reason 5] The proposal has failed to demonstrate that it would not result in a net loss of biodiversity or that through mitigation no net loss or net gain is possible. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy 70 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and NPPF 2019 guidance, paragraph 170.