Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for residential redevelopment comprising two 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 buildings on site.

 

The Area Development Manager updated the Principal Planner’s report by referring to the amendment sheet:

      i.          updated condition wording;

     ii.          condition 8 relating to gas boilers was not needed;

   iii.          condition 19 was a duplicate so could be replaced with a management plan.

 

The Area Development Manager said he had been advised today (the morning of the Committee) that chimneys in the application were decorative, not functional.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Highworth Avenue:

      i.          Significant impact on nearby neighbours. Impact on privacy and amenities.

     ii.          Unattractive design.

   iii.          Overbearing.

   iv.          Out of character with the area.

    v.          Took issue with accuracy of drawing P12.

   vi.          Parking spaces and turning circle for others is opposite her property, so will contravene Local Plan policies as per reasons for refusal for the previous iteration of the application.

 vii.          Concern over loss of trees as a result of the development.

viii.          Took issue with back land development.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a representative from Hurst Park Estate Residents’ Association:

      i.          Neighbours would be affected by noise, bin movements and disturbance.

     ii.          The proposed number of vehicle and vehicle movements on-site would be the same for this application as for the previous application.

   iii.          Previous reason for refusal relating to ‘overbearing’ had not been overcome.

   iv.          Design out of character with the area.

    v.          Had only heard at committee this morning:

a.    that chimneys on the application were for aesthetic purpose and were not functional;

b.    about electronic vehicle charging points.

   vi.          An update report (para 8.32 of Officer’s report) was due for committee but had not been made available.

 vii.          Took issue with statement early in Officer’s report that on balance there was more benefit than harm from the proposed development. Back garden developments would cause more harm than good, so were contrary to planning policy.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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

      i.          Expressed concern that if this application were approved it would be seen as a landmark development that allowed back garden development.

     ii.          Local Plan Policy 52 would not be worth anything if this application were approved. Suggested the application did not satisfy criteria in Local Plan Policy 52.

   iii.          Referred to paragraph 8.21 in the Officer’s report. Queried if the benefits of the application outweighed the harm? This was a new type of development and could set a precedent for homes with restricted outdoor play space.

   iv.          Reasons for refusal for the previous application had not been addressed, and Policy 52 had not been satisfied:

1.    The new proposal was not in-keeping with the private and verdant rear style of other properties in the area.

2.    The new proposal was higher than the previous application (which was refused). It would overlook neighbours and remove their privacy.

3.    Overbearing.

4.    There was no evidence that vehicular movements would be reduced with this application compared to the last. It would reduce neighbour’s privacy and amenity.

5.    There would be loss of diversity and trees/hedges in the area before build out. More will be lost through the back land development and area for car parking spaces. The loss of gardens will negatively impact biodiversity and block the wildlife corridor.

    v.          The character of Highworth Avenue was under threat from the development. Highworth Avenue was individual and arts&crafts in style.

 

Councillor Gawthrope Wood proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendations:

      i.          ornamental chimneys and fireplaces should not be used for open or wood burning stoves;

     ii.          request a cycle store;

   iii.          obscure glazing on front of house.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application as amended in committee.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed scale, bulk and form of the dwellings at the rear of the site would appear as inappropriate back-land development, starkly out of keeping with the verdant rear garden environment in which the properties would be located and particularly when viewed from Highworth Avenue down the long driveway. The proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policies 52, 55 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

2.    No.51's garden is sited immediately adjacent to the north-west rear boundary of the site and plot 2. The excessive length, height, form and bulk of the north west facing elevation and its return would result in a significant overbearing impact upon the rear garden of No.51 Highworth Avenue contrary to Policies 52, 55, 56 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

3.    The rear dwellings plots 1 and 2 would be sited directly and in close proximity to the rear of the gardens of No.43 and 47 Highworth Avenue. Due to the limited gap between these properties and the proposed dwellings, and by virtue of the proposed scale, bulk and form of the dwellings, the proposal would result in an unacceptable sense of overbearing upon the rear gardens of No.43 and 47 Highworth Avenue contrary to Policies 52, 55, 56 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

4.    The proposal would introduce additional vehicular movements into an otherwise peaceful rear garden environment generating additional noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties contrary to Policies 35, 52, 55, 56 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

5.    Biodiversity: Legitimacy of the previous reason for refusal 5 being appended again or a variation thereof given the loss of habitat for biodiversity delegated to officers in consultation with Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes following consultation with the Council’s Nature Conservation Officer

 

Officers undertook to explore if potential reason 5 re biodiversity could be justified as a reason for refusal. They would liaise with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes after committee if the reason could be used or not.