Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
96 21/01476/FUL - 45 Highworth Avenue PDF 266 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.