A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

20/05298/HFUL - 72 Canterbury Street

Meeting: 01/09/2021 - Planning (Item 97)

97 20/05298/HFUL - 2 Barrow Road pdf icon 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.