Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval to erect a two-storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension and roof extension and to subdivide the existing dwelling into 4 separate flats with private and shared amenity space.

 

The Planner updated his report by referring to details on the amendment sheet:

      i.          Amendment to Paragraph 8.22.

     ii.          Referred to a statement from the Applicant.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Thoday Street:

      i.          Was not against development and understand the need for more housing.

     ii.          Supported the redevelopment of the former Ridgeon’s site and applaud the Council that much of it will be affordable.

   iii.          The proposed development was the wrong one in the wrong place.

   iv.          Wanted to put on record the Objector’s view the Applicant has gone about this application in an underhand way:

a.    Alleged the Applicant said he intended to live in the property with his partner.

b.    The Applicant then quickly installed tenants who subjected those in the adjoining property to anti-social behaviour.

    v.          Objector’s specific objections to this application include:

a.    Overdevelopment – almost all properties in the immediate vicinity are still family homes or single unit HMOs.

b.    Out of scale and character with neighbouring buildings – application is much larger than those buildings in immediate vicinity.

c.    Increase in noise and waste particularly to those living in the properties adjacent and adjoining. Four dwellings = 12 waste bins.

d.    Intensification of use and increased disturbance from subdivision caused by more movements from property and deliveries to it etc.

e.    Increased overlooking of adjacent properties and those on Fairfax Rd and Ross Street caused by the increased scale & third storey.

f.      Loss of distinction between public space at front and private space at rear impacting negatively upon the privacy of residents

g.    Change in character from a family orientated area undermining existing sense of community amongst residents.

h.    Lack of car parking provision which is already limited in area – a view supported by County Highways and Officers

i.      Also increases pressure to introduce residents parking scheme.

j.      Amenity space at the rear is poorly related to the flats it serves which will not encourage those who own to it to look after it.

k.    Insufficient cycle parking and bin stores, this may result in them being stored at front of property which is detrimental to appearance and amenity.

l.      Proposed design will result in further blocking of light to side bedroom window at 182 Thoday Street.

m.  Structurally flats 3 and 4 do not conform to roof heights for residential space standards.

n.    Internal stairs also do not comply with Building Regulations.

   vi.          Closing Comments

a.    Para. 8.22 referenced bus stops on Milton Rd and Kings Hedges Rd rather than Mill Rd.

b.    There was no acknowledgement that there could be an impact upon residential amenity which Councillors should consider.

c.    Officers also recognise the ceiling heights in flats 3 and 4 do not meet the height standards set out in the Council’s own policy.

d.    Overall this application does not suggest that the proposed development is fit for purpose for the future.

e.    It is instead a speculative attempt to maximise profit to the detriment of existing residents.

 

Mr Edwards (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reason:

 

The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in extensions of a scale and massing which would be out of keeping with the existing building and being overly prominent and bulky in the street and a poor quality provision of internal space due to restricted head heights and no private outdoor space for flat 4, resulting in a cramped form of development for future occupants that would result in a poor standard of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 50, 53, 55, 56 and 58.