Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
89 20/04076/FUL - 36 Wilberforce Road PDF 181 KB
Minutes:
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.