Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing 2 storey house and replacement with three, two-person one bedroom flats and two, three person two bedroom flats in a one and two storey building.

The Planning Officer referred to details on the Amendment Sheet.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Was speaking on behalf of 19 objectors.

    ii.         The application ignored a significant road safety issue because of the location of the property. The junction was dangerous and in 2016 was ranked third out of 26 applications for road safety by the Cambridge City LHI panel when applied for double yellow lines in Strangeway Road.

   iii.         Referred to two bus stops on a plan displayed during the meeting which were 30m from each entrance, one of which was opposite Heron Close and the other was three houses down. Each bus stops served 6 buses an hour.

  iv.         There were approximately 1900 pupils at three schools within 600m of the site. Strangeway Road was a significant access route for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Children lingered on this corner.

    v.         Queen Edith’s Way was narrow and had a speed limit of 20mph but most cars and buses drove between 25-40mph.

  vi.         Noted that there were no proposed allocated parking spaces and therefore every car would arrive at the property uncertain whether they would have a parking space.  

 vii.         Disagreed with the response provided by the Highways Authority that there would be no impact on highway safety.

viii.         Parking provision was dangerous and inadequate. Criticised the use of the Cambridge On-street Parking Strategy 2016 for assessing parking stress as it was out of date and not fit for purpose.

  ix.         Policy 82 had not been fulfilled.

    x.         Queens Edith’s Way did not have double yellow lines and experienced anti-social verge parking.

  xi.         Noted staff from Netherhall School parked in Beaumount Road.

A vote was taken on the officer’s recommendation to approve the application but subject to the inclusion of additional conditions regarding:

a.    EV and passive charging points and

b.    the flat roof area being a green roof.

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

‘Minded to’ refuse reasons were provided by Members. An adjournment followed to allow officers to consider advice and to draft the reasons for refusal. Whilst drafting the reasons for refusal it became apparent there was a discrepancy/uncertainty regarding whether or not the application complied with space standards.

In light of the uncertainty, officers advised the Committee the application should be deferred to obtain clarification of space standards compliance.

Some Members indicated that they only had concerns regarding space standards and this was why they had voted to reject the officer’s recommendation.

The Committee:

Resolved unanimously to defer the application pending clarification of the space standards compliance uncertainty.

Application deferred to the next Planning Committee as the Committee  had insufficient time to properly consider the application.