Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
97 20/05298/HFUL - 2 Barrow Road PDF 142 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought approval for extension, remodelling and
refurbishment of the existing dwelling including two-storey rear and side
extension with associated landscaping works.
The Senior Planner updated his report by referring to amendments in his
presentation:
·
an additional representation;
·
an additional condition to secure the installation
of green or browns roofs.
1)
The flat roof(s) hereby approved shall be a Green
Roof or Brown Roof in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. A Green Roof shall be designed to be partially or
completely covered with plants in accordance with the Cambridge Local Plan 2018
glossary definition, a Brown Roof shall be constructed with a substrate which
would be allowed to self-vegetate.
Reason:
To ensure that the development integrates the principles of sustainable design
and construction and contributes to water management and adaptation to climate
change (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 28 and 31)
·
Additional condition required:
2)
Prior to the commencement of the development a plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority detailing
the proposed specification, number and locations of internal and / or external
bird and bat boxes on the new buildings, hedgehog boundary access features and
proposed native planting. The installation shall be carried out and
subsequently maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason:
to provide ecological enhancements for protected species on the site. In
accordance with Cambridge Local Plan policy 70.
Ms Pedley (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from the Solicitor on behalf of Barrow Road residents:
i.
The scheme was not consistent with
Planning Policy. Suggested the application was only recommended for approval by
the Officer due to the fall back position. Took issue with this.
ii.
Anticipated the Applicant wanted a
larger property on-site than in the application and may seek this through
separate planning applications.
iii.
For any development to be lawful
it should be done as one application.
iv.
Suggested the application would
harm the character of the area and there were no public benefits from it.
Councillor Slatter (Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application:
i.
Wished to protect the character of
the area and Conservation Area.
ii.
People appreciated amenity space,
particularly after lockdown.
Councillor Slatter tabled a statement setting out possible breaches of
the Cambridge Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework from Councillor
Hauk:
i.
Possible breaches of policies in the National
Planning Policy Framework:
a.
NPPF 8c.
b.
NPPF 118 (e).
c.
NPPF 125.
d.
NPPF 127 (b, c).
e.
NPPF 185 (c).
ii.
Possible breaches of Cambridge Local Plan policies:
a.
CLP 55 (c ).
b.
CLP 56 (a, I).
c.
CLP 57 (a).
d.
CLP 59 (a), (b), (f), (g).
e.
CLP 61 (a, c).
f.
CLP 52 (a).
Councillor Slatter read out the following points on behalf of Councillor
Hauk (City Ward Councillor):
i.
Having studied the documents on the planning portal
and visited the site in person, did not agree Planning Officer’s recommendation
to approve and wished to highlight several issues that may constitute policy
breaches of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Cambridge Local Plan
with regard to detrimental impact on a conservation area.
ii.
The Barrow Road Conservation Area Appraisal from
2016 outlines the features and characteristics of the Barrow Road area that
would be diminished by the proposed development. The appraisal states that “The road is distinguished by
its low-density layout with wide green verges planted with trees behind which
stand detached two-storey houses” that give a “predominant impression of
greenery and openness“. “The relationship between the buildings and their leafy
setting is particularly important for the road’s distinctive character.“ Key
characteristics are that “architectural unity is ensured by the common scale of
the houses: all were originally designed as detached two storey dwellings and
have the same ridge height.” Its recommendations clearly emphasise “preservation of the roofs and the common
ridge height”. “The open and leafy character of the road should be preserved”.
If there is any significance in the establishment of a “conservation” area,
then the planned development must be prevented.
iii.
The destruction and
replacement of the existing building was first approved in 2015, before the Barrow
Road Conservation Area was created. A new permission was granted for
essentially the same development in 2017. Of course, people should be able to
build houses they want to live in. However, the 2017 approval was only granted
because it was for the same in principle development as the 2015 and the
Council felt that its hands were tied by the precedent.
iv.
However, the previous
approval was given before the Barrow Road Conservation Area was created. The
new development would result in a nearly three-fold increase in floor space on
a plot that has already been subdivided and would also add extensive side and
rear extensions. The proposal is for a three-storey building in a conservation
area characterised by two-storey buildings. 2 Barrow Road is one of two
symmetrically designed gateway houses (with 1 Barrow Road) into the
conservation areas from Trumpington Road, and therefore essential for the
character and amenity of the whole area. The design is clearly overbearing, out
of scale and out of character with houses in the conservation area.
v.
This view is
supported by the Twentieth Century Society, who objected to previous plans to
demolish 2 Barrow Road between 2014 and 2017 based on breaches of the NPPF 192 & 193, and CLP 61 (14/1615/FUL,
15/0225/FUL and 17/0826/FUL), and Cambridge Past Present & Future who
objected based on Cambridge Local Plan 6, 58 and 61. The council's conservation
team opposes the current plans based on CLP 58 and 61 and NPPF 196, as they did
with the previous plans, due to extensive side and rear extensions, the
overbearing ridge height of the three-storey development, and the design of the
garage.
The Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of
Councillor Robertson (City Ward Councillor):
i.
The statement from the planning solicitor (name
redacted) comprehensively provides the technical issues and reasons why this
application should be rejected. Councillor Hauk is also providing a clear
analysis of this application’s conflicts with planning policy. Would not repeat
the issues covered by them and trust that the committee will recognise the
validity of their statements.
ii.
the council has an obligation to recognise the very
significant nature of Barrow Road as a heritage asset. Even within the special
environment of Cambridge, Barrow Road stands out as a unique street which must
be preserved.
iii.
It is clear that the proposal is in reality to
demolish and replace No. 2 Barrow Road with a much larger building which would
be significantly different from No. 1 Barrow Road opposite. This would impose
great harm on the symmetry of the two houses on either side of the entrance to
the road which are a fundamental and key feature of this conservation area.
iv.
The credibility of the council’s policies on
preservation of heritage assets and use of conservation areas is at stake.
Urged Committee to reject this application.
Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include provision for electric vehicle charging points.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include air source heat pumps.
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include bike storage.
This amendment was lost
by 2 votes to 3 with 1 abstention.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to reject the
Officer recommendation to approve the application.
Reasons for refusal that were not agreed by
the committee (voted by 4 votes to
0 with 2 abstentions) to reject
i.
Energy efficiency.
ii.
Garage in gable incongruous.
Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 2
abstentions) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the
following reason:
The proposed development, by reason of the
scale, depth, design and detailing of the extensions, would result in a form of
development that fails to respond positively to the character, appearance and
articulation of the existing dwelling. The resultant dwelling would fail to
satisfactorily respond to its context or to preserve or enhance the character
of the Conservation Area. There are not considered to be sufficient public
benefits to outweigh this harm, including the likelihood of the extant fallback
scheme being developed out. Consequently the development would be contrary to
Policies 55, 56, 57, 59 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and to
paragraph 202 of the NPPF July 2021.