Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage and outbuildings and the erection of a new replacement dwelling with indoor swimming pool.

The Area Development Manager updated the report by referring to the additional information contained in the Amendment Sheet which included:

i.               Correcting figures contained in the space standards table.

ii.             Amendment to the conclusion of the report now making reference to the conservation area.

iii.            Amendment to condition 9 to make specific reference to the retention of the beech hedgerow at the front of the property.

iv.           Amendment to paragraph 8.5 of the officer report; the proposal now maintains a single entrance and exit to the site.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the following (written statement read by Committee Manager):

·      Resident of 34 Wilberforce Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         The owners and occupants of No 34 continued to strongly object to the above application for the reasons set out in the detailed comments filed for No 34 Wilberforce Road on the Cambridge City Planning Portal on 3 November 2020 and which were available as part of the online file for this application.

    ii.         Believed there were sound planning objections to permission being granted for the proposed development which had not been adequately addressed in the report prepared for the Committee.

   iii.         Noted a report prepared for the Committee by the planning officer had appeared on the public file with a publication date of 4 August and recommended approval of the scheme in its amended form.

  iv.         Felt the report did not address the lack of public benefit identified in the objections. Nor did it adequately explain why it was desirable or necessary in the context of the Conservation Area to demolish a perfectly good house that was in keeping with its surroundings and which had such an important and commanding position overlooking Wilberforce Road and Emmanuel playing fields.

    v.         The "sustainability" arguments in the officer report did not stack up next to the considerable environmental waste, emissions and disturbance that would result from a full scale demolition and rebuilding of a new, much larger house on site. Felt the swimming pool could be accommodated by a low-level rear extension to the property. This would create a fraction of the environmental impact, waste and disturbance of the present project and would not damage an asset of the Conservation Area or affect the amenity of adjacent properties.

  vi.         It was not understood how the planning officer had been able to conclude in paragraph 8.10 that the proposals "are not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property (i.e. No.34)" given the scale and nature of the new house, even in the amended application.

 vii.         The suggestion in paragraph 8.21 of the officer report that "in terms of sustainability benefits the existing property is very poor in terms of environmental performance" ignored the fact that through refurbishment, rewiring etc its energy efficiency rating and performance could be massively increased (as was pointed out in the objections) and all without the acknowledged environment damage, pollution, waste and consumption of new materials etc caused by demolition and rebuilding. The applicant's sustainability report stated that due to the demolition etc there would be no material savings in terms of carbon emissions over its life – as was pointed out in the objections. The fact that the property and its grounds had largely been left unoccupied since it was purchased by the present owners may also have contributed to its "poor environmental performance" but that was not an acceptable reason for favouring the grant of planning consent.

viii.         The whole scheme involved the demolition and building of a new house on site which would massively increase the noise and disturbance impact on those living at No.34, for a greatly extended period and this factor was simply glossed over in the planning officer's report at paragraph 8.22. Work is enabled to start at 0800 hrs during weekdays and on Saturdays. There would be no respite from the huge construction project, possibly for years.

  ix.         The occupants of No. 34 disagreed with the conclusion at paragraph 9.1 of the officer's report. Contrary to that conclusion, the unnecessary demolition of the property and rebuilding would have an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation area and the amenity of No.34. It was not justified in terms of "sustainability" and the expansion of the size of this property and addition of new amenities such as the swimming pool could be readily achieved through a less damaging, disruptive and visually intrusive rear extension. Further, there was in substance no countervailing public benefit whatsoever to be had from the project that justified the destruction of a Conservation Area asset in these circumstances.

    x.         Even in its amended form, this application should be rejected.

Jeremy Ashworth (Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet;

    ii.         granted delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional or amended conditions and informatives:

a.    to secure on-site EV charging points;

b.    for the details of cycle parking provision before development above ground level in order to meet the policy requirements set out in the Local Plan;

c.    for details of all plant and machinery to be used / provided serving the swimming pool;

d.    that condition 12 be amended to require a minimum of 10% net gain for biodiversity; and

An informative included on the planning permission in respect of air source heat pumps.