Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 2no dwellings following the demolition of No.18 Adams Road.

 

The Senior Planner updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet which can be viewed at the link below and advised that a response to all the objections had been received from the Planning Agent:

 

(Public Pack) Amendment Sheet 1 Dec Agenda Supplement for Planning, 01/12/2021 10:00 (cambridge.gov.uk)

 

The Committee were also informed of an update from the Biodiversity Officer who had advised of the following:

 

Having reviewed the latest documents which demonstrate the applicants attempts to reduce light spill from the proposed development onto the adjacent Adams Road Sanctuary Wildlife Site, including the introduction of a 6m tree and shrub planting buffer along the norther boundary. In addition, northern windows and glazing have been removed and upper storey roof lines further set back from the boundary. These measure would mitigate against the proposed development, however the large scale and proximity of the development both during and post construction still threatens rather than enhances the designated site.

 

If minded toapprove the application, then I would request that all previously suggested conditions were imposed. The proposed onsite biodiversity net gain, green rood and bird box provision are support. I would raise that the requested Ecological Sensitive lighting conditions is securing a strict limit to external lighting, including the proposed norther paved courtyard, which may restrict night-time use of these spaces.

 

A representation had also been received questioning the interpretation of Policy 67 which had been dealt with as part of the officer report. The gardens around the sanctuary were not considered to forward a definition of open space.

 

All documents could now be viewed on the Council’s website at the following link (21/01437/FUL):

Simple Search (greatercambridgeplanning.org)

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the Chair of the Adams Road Bird Sanctuary

      i.          The ‘Bird Sanctuary Club’ had been in existence since the 1930’s.

     ii.           A remnant of natural woodland & water near the centre of Cambridge. It was a unique ‘natural asset’ of the city.

   iii.          The Club had an open membership of over 200 family households from over the City & County. [18 area postcodes]. 

   iv.          It had always been valued as a remarkable haven for wildlife and tranquillity.

    v.          In the last 18 months, due to the pandemic and Lockdown, membership had increased by over 25%.  Such was the demand for genuine undisturbed and publicly accessible Open Space.

   vi.          The social well-being benefits and bio-diversity values had become more important than ever.

 vii.          To quote from some of the 35 passionate objectors to this unacceptable proposal:

·        “It is a miraculous healing place. In our post-pandemic thinking it should not be sacrificed”

·        “A place of refuge … we owe it to future generations to make every effort to protect such places”;

·        “a magical oasis of really wild space where we first saw a kingfisher. Please refuse permission”.

viii.          The sanctuary had survived because the distinctive local built pattern had been maintained. 

   ix.          Devoted volunteers care for it under a management plan; members support provided support with gifts and legacies.   

    x.          If the City Council cannot save a site, protected through every possible designation, then what part of the natural resources of the City will survive into the future?

 

The Committee received a second representation in objection to the application from a local resident:

      i.          The Case Officers’ report omits any reference to the designated to the Sanctuary as either protected open space or a county wildlife site.

     ii.          The applicant had not considered potential ecological impacts on a designated wildlife site.  

   iii.          Policy 69 required professional assessment of such impacts.  No such assessment has been made.  

   iv.          The Officer's report overrides the objection of the Nature Conservation Officer and those of ARBS members, many of whom have relevant professional experience. 

    v.          There were over seventy public comments on the public portal including the Wildlife Trust and individuals with relevant professional qualifications and experience.

   vi.          The Wildlife Trust's independent statement on the Sanctuary described its high ecological value and underlined the threats to this if the buffer of the surrounding gardens is eroded.  By focusing only on a limited set of design features, the Officer's report almost wilfully ignored the extensive evidence presented.

 vii.          Set against harm to the sanctuary, a small net gain in biodiversity on the development site is immaterial.  In any case, the calculation was flawed; and any net gain would depend on a long-term management regime that, despite the Officer's Report conclusions, would be impossible to enforce.  

viii.          The Conservation Area Appraisal highlighted the value of the pattern of long gardens between the houses and the sanctuary.  This pattern is shown on the maps. 

   ix.          The Officer's Report refers to the size of those gardens but not to this pattern. 

    x.          Contrary to the Case Officer's conclusion, the proposal did not accord with the Appraisal.   

   xi.          The sanctuary was so small that any building on its borders would causes significant damage.  If this proposal is accepted, it may affect the planning context for any future applications on the sanctuary boundary, increasing their likelihood of acceptance.

 xii.          This was an ill-conceived proposal, that not only poses an existential threat to a local nature reserve but would come at a considerable carbon cost to the city. 

 

The Committee received a third representation in objection to the application from a local resident:

      i.          This was a plan to destroy one large house and replace it with a two-house complex containing twelve bedrooms, garaging for four cars and much else.

     ii.          The development involved the excavation of two substantial basements for features such as swimming pools; it required prolonged use of towers of scaffolding, heavy earth-moving equipment and extensive pile-driving, much of it right up against the Sanctuary and its drift way.

   iii.          The level of disturbance proposed would be prolonged and extreme. 

   iv.          The proposed application would certainly drive off the birds which nest nearby, and the flocks of redwings and fieldfares that arrive each winter.

    v.          The pervasive degradation of the whole reserve by a permanent and substantial increase in human activity immediately beyond its borders would ensure that the birds do not return, and that the losses will extend ever further across this fragile and irreplaceable habitat. The impacts could be neither avoided, mitigated, nor compensated, and the only proposals for doing so are transparently trivial. 

   vi.          The Case Officer had cast aside the accumulated evidence, and the representations of his specialist officers, and argues that planning permission be granted.  In such cases the National Planning Policy Framework (para 180) is clear. The application must be refused.

 

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

 

Councillor Smith (Castle Ward) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Local Plan Policy 69 sets out a presumption against approval “where development is proposed within, adjoining or which will otherwise affect a locally designated nature conservation site” (para 7.66).  In this policy context we examine the application against the two Local Plan policy tests for the applicant to demonstrate (7.65) the proposal will not have an adverse effect on biodiversity. These are to evidence:

·       Test 1 (7.66), "comprehensive surveys of the historic and existing biodiversity importance".

·       Test 2 (7.66)"a professional ecological assessment of the impact of the proposed development".

     ii.          Where adverse effects have been identified, Local Plan policy requires applicants to address:

·       TEST 3 by providing (7.66) "details of measures to protect and enhance the habitat or species identified". 

·       Test 1: Comprehensive surveys of biodiversity.  The applicant's revised Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (September 2019) was based on a September 2018 field survey of the development site alone (not the adjoining locally designated nature conservation site, the ARBS), and a desk study that did not include consultation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre (despite a statement to the contrary on p7).

·       The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) reveals a serious gap in the applicant’s knowledge of local biodiversity.  It refers to historical records of 15 bird species (three on red list and seven on amber list) within a 2km radius.  This is less than 20% of the 86 species (15 on red list, 18 on amber list) recorded in the Sanctuary itself.  No invertebrates are listed in the PEA, yet the ARBS was designated a County Wildlife Site due to its remarkable invertebrate diversity.

·       In failing to consider the biodiversity of the adjoining ARBS, the applicant has failed to carry out a comprehensive survey as required under Local Plan Policy 69. 

·       Test 2: Professional ecological assessment of potential harm to a designated site. The PEA is inconsistent about the designated status of the ARBS.  In Table 2 on p12 it states, "there are no known non-statutory sites within the study area". Later in the text under Designated Sites (Table 7 p28) the ARBS is listed as a City Wildlife Site and later again, with reference to amphibians, as a County Wildlife Site.

   iii.          Given the applicant has not provided evidence of a comprehensive survey of the biodiversity of the adjoining ARBS, the applicant is unable to consider the prospective harm to the ARBS and arrives at deeply flawed conclusions:

·       Foreseen Impacts (Table 7), "the proposed development is not of a sufficient scale to have a major negative impact on any nearby designated statutory or non-statutory sites."

·       Planning Statement 5.23, cites the PEA as the sole evidence on which it is concluded that "there will not be significant adverse impacts upon the biodiversity of the site or wider area.’’

   iv.          These conclusions contrast markedly with an independent statement on the ecological value of the ARBS submitted by the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire (BCN) Wildlife Trust.  Emphasizing its designation as a County Wildlife Site, the statement predicts harm to the Sanctuary from garden development: "Adam's Road Bird Sanctuary remains a haven for wildlife precisely because it is buffered by the large gardens which surround it. The erosion of this buffer in general can only act to weaken the value of the site for wildlife, reducing the chance of successful nesting by birds and threatening the amphibian, mammal and invertebrate populations".  We request the Planning Committee to read this assessment (attached) in conjunction with this letter

    v.          To consider the adverse impacts of development in proximity to the ARBS, we turn to the approval and later construction of a house (4 Clarkson Road) in 2007. The applicant makes much of this development as justification for the 18 Adams Road proposal (see OR 8.39).  However, 4 Clarkson Road was of prefabricated design and no new vehicle access has been created adjacent to the Sanctuary and its driftway. Dust, noise, lights, and earth movements either during or after construction, or both, were minimal compared with what can be expected if the 18 Adams Road application is approved.  Even so, given the sensitivity of nature to change, bird counts have shown a reduction in the use of the part of the reserve immediately adjacent to the house. Snipe (amber listed) used to use this patch and have not been seen there for many years; finches on passage and nesting dunnocks (amber listed) are found in this corner no longer; and reed warblers, for which the ARBS is particularly noted, occur there in much lower numbers.

   vi.          Construction of the proposed rear house itself, including a substantial basement, will require the operation of heavy lifting and earth-moving equipment right up against the Sanctuary and its driftway (where the hedgerow also meets County Wildlife Site criteria because of its length, breadth, and diversity of species).  Associated noise, air and light pollution are clear threats to the ARBS, and concerns have also been raised about the effects on local drainage of the excavation of the basement.

 vii.          No matter the scope and extent of conditions imposed, these construction operations would certainly drive off birds in the short term and combined with the human activity of occupation, including, noise, lights, and vehicle movements just over the border, would almost certainly lead to the permanent loss of some species.  Tree creepers (amber listed) and two species of woodpecker use this corner of the Sanctuary, and another obvious probable casualty would be the flocks of fieldfares and redwings (both red-listed), siskins and redpolls (amber listed) that gather to roost at the northern end of the driftway in winter. 

viii.          The applicant has failed to present evidence to demonstrate that harm to the Sanctuary’s bird population will not occur as required under Local Plan Policy 69 (7.65).

   ix.          The evidence for deleterious impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on biodiversity conservation - including birds, insects, and other taxa - is clear, and the problem is gaining more and more attention among scientists and in the public domain.  Impacts of noise pollution, for example on bird breeding seasons, are also becoming apparent.

    x.          Reporting on a recent study in the United States, Masuyuki Senzaki and his co-authors (Senzaki, M., Barber, J.R., Phillips, J.N. et al. (2020) Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent. Nature 587, 605–609) demonstrated that anthropogenic noise and light can substantially affect when birds first laid eggs, clutch size, partial hatching success, clutch failure and whether nestlings successfully fledged, and concluded that their findings indicate the need to consider sensory pollutants alongside the traditional dimensions of the environment that typically inform biodiversity conservation. 

   xi.          With respect to insects, Douglas Boyes and his co-authors found that ALAN strongly reduced moth caterpillar abundance compared with unlit sites in southern England and affected caterpillar development, and that introduction of ALAN to previously unlit sites affected the feeding behaviour of nocturnal caterpillars (Douglas H. Boyes, Darren M. Evans et al (2021) Street lighting has detrimental impacts on local insect populations. Science Advances).  Moths, of course, provide essential food sources for birds and other animals, and are important pollinators.  These two studies are a tiny sample of a growing number of publications on the threat of ALAN to natural ecological processes and biodiversity - a threat which is now getting more and more attention in the popular press.

 xii.          The applicant claims that modifications to the type of glazing on the building, and the fact that most windows face east, are enough to deal with the lighting threat.  This is not so. 

·       First, it is not at all certain that the glazing modifications would be significant in reducing impact on wild species.

·        Second, the main light spill would fall directly onto the driftway, which is an integral part of the ARBS, just where it joins the main Sanctuary. 

·       Third, damaging impacts are wider: they do not occur only in front of the light source. 

·       Fourth, although OR 10.1 (32) conditions external lighting with regard to biodiversity on-site, it is not clear that this extends to biodiversity in the Sanctuary and in any case, there must be a significant risk that over the lifetime of the rear house further lighting would be introduced which would also adversely affect the Sanctuary.

·       Fifth, headlights on the new drive parallel to the driftway are not subject to conditions. 

·       Sixth, we wonder whether the welcome planning condition (OR 8.58) of less than ‘1 lux lighting zone’ is achievable in a domestic outdoor setting? A measurement of 1 lux is equal to the illumination of a one metre square surface that is one metre away from a single candle. So, the lighting zone would need to be in virtual darkness.

·       TEST 3: Details of measures to protect and enhance the habitat or species.  The applicant’s failure under Test 1 - to evidence comprehensive surveys of the historic and existing biodiversity – led to failure under Test 2 to provide a professional ecological assessment of the impact of the proposed development. These failures lead inevitably to failure under Test 3.

xiii.          The Ecological Mitigation Plan's only specific recommendations regarding Designated Sites refer to dust and noise control during construction and adhering to the lighting conditions recommended for bats that live on site. Without proper awareness of the harm, it is not surprising that the mitigations proposed fall disastrously short. The Council's Nature Conservation Officer states: 'Features proposed within the Ecological Mitigation Plan such as bird boxes, hedgehog holes and hibernaculum would be appropriate but would not mitigate for the proposed proximity of the built form to the local wildlife site boundary' [OR 6.8, our emphasis].  The Case Officer contradicts this (OR 8.59), claiming that the mitigation plan "demonstrates" sufficient mitigation through these features.  This latter, lay, assessment is flawed as it is not informed by ‘comprehensive’ data on the existing biodiversity, and contradicts the Nature Conservation Officer’s professional assessment of potential harm as required by Local Plan Policy 69.

xiv.          Additionally, subsequent tree works in the Sanctuary have been insisted on by 4 Clarkson Close owners, and Conservation Area regulations do not protect the reserve against this as the applicant claims.

xv.          Much is made by the applicant of a claimed on-site Biodiversity Net Gain.  Set against harm to the sanctuary, a small net gain in biodiversity on the development site is immaterial; and the Nature Conservation Officer maintains his objection to building close to the boundary.  In any case, the purported net gain would depend on a long-term management regime that would be difficult to enforce in perpetuity.  It is claimed (OR 8.57) that a "suitable soft landscaping scheme could be achieved within the site" and that - following concern over gain persistence expressed by the Nature Conservation Officer –this could "be conditioned in addition to securing its ongoing management".   There is no reference here to what the BNG requires.  It would require all future residents of the rear house to refrain from mowing their lawn in summer, for example, and to maintain a thick scrub cover intact right up to the northern end of the house.  Securing this in perpetuity is surely unrealistic. 

 

To conclude: 

xvi.          The ecological and biodiversity importance of the ARBS is attested by its designation as a City and a County Wildlife Site, the BCN Wildlife Trust's accompanying statement, and the Sanctuary’s historic and contemporary biodiversity records.

xvii.          In considering development proposals in proximity to designated sites of biodiversity value, development management must uphold the relevant Local Plan Policies with a view to both protecting and enhancing such sites.

xviii.          Local Plan Policy 69 sets out a presumption against approval “where development is proposed within, adjoining or which will otherwise affect a locally designated nature conservation site” (para 7.66). The policy requires the applicant to demonstrate (7.65) the proposal will not have an adverse effect on biodiversity. Against the policy tests, the applicant has been shown to have:

·       (Test 1) failed to evidence "comprehensive surveys of the historic and existing biodiversity importance"

·       (Test 2) failed to provide "a professional ecological assessment of the impact of the proposed development"

·       (Test 3) failed to provide "details of measures to protect and enhance the habitat or species identified".

xix.          The recorded impact of 4 Clarkson Close and scientific evidence demonstrate that the proposed development would lead to irreversible adverse impacts on the Sanctuary's biodiversity and ecology. This damage would result from the cumulative impacts of construction, and noise and light pollution and vehicle movements arising from occupation of the proposed dwelling, which will damage wild populations of a wide range of species, including the invertebrates which were the basis for designation of the Sanctuary as a County Wildlife Site.

xx.          The presumption against approval can only be overcome if the benefit of the development outweighs the impacts to the nature conservation site and if the harm can be mitigated.  The applicant has demonstrated neither. The OR acknowledges the requirements to demonstrate no harm (8.49, 8.50) but fails to say that these requirements have not been met. The OR sets aside the professional assessment provided by the Council’s Nature Conservation Officer. It appears to accept the applicant's statements without questioning them. 

xxi.          It is apparent, the only way to protect the Sanctuary from harm is to protect large gardens surrounding the Sanctuary from development in accordance with the Conservation Area Appraisal and Local Plan Policy 67. 

xxii.          Neither the PEA nor the Planning Statement acknowledge the designation of the ARBS as Protected Open Space (LP67) and the fact that it scored highly in a 2011 quality assessment under the Natural and Semi-natural Green Spaces category.  Local Plan Policy 67 has provision for previously unidentified sites, "regardless of ownership" (7.43) to qualify as protected open space (7.46). Contrary to the statement in OR 8.34 the gardens surrounding the ARBS appear to comprise such space because collectively they fulfil one or more of the three criteria for environmental importance in Appendix I of the Local Plan (7.44) through their function as a vital buffer zone around an important nature reserve.  LP 67 states "If an application is received which affects a site that may be worthy of protection, an assessment will be made of the site against the assessment criteria listed in Appendix I" (7.46). No such assessment has been carried out. 

xxiii.          The Applicant’s proposed mitigation measures at 18 Adams Road do not begin to mitigate the irreversible adverse impacts of biodiversity of the Sanctuary. In the remarkable event of full compliance and enforcement of the 33 conditions (set out in OR 10.1) proposed for the construction period and beyond, they would still not remove or materially reduce adverse impacts to prevent harm.

xxiv.          The Planning Committee would be justified in citing provisions of Local Plan Policies 67 and 69 as material planning grounds to refuse this planning application

 

The Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor Payne (Castle Ward Councillor):

 

      i.          Adam’s Road Bird Sanctuary was one of very few publicly accessible open spaces near the city centre, which offered a protected haven for a wide range of wildlife, including 92 species of birds (nine on the red list), four amphibians (notably the Great Crested Newt) and 1,600 invertebrates (52 with formal conservation status, and, notably, half of British ladybird species), 334 plants and over 100 fungi.

     ii.          It was also a highly valued public amenity, offering peace and tranquility to residents from across the city.

   iii.          The value of the Bird Sanctuary was clearly attested by the supporting letter from the Wildlife Trust, as well as a large number of objections raised against this development, including 4 in Castle Ward, and others in West Chesterton and Abbey Wards, which clearly shows that this space had value beyond its immediate neighbours in Newnham ward.

   iv.          Noted that the council's own Trees Officer and Nature Conservation Officer have also recorded their objections.

    v.          These concerns have been added to by evidence from Richard Buxton Solicitors regarding the adverse impact of this development, and the misinterpretations of the Local Plan within the application. 

   vi.          Concerned that the proposed development at 18 Adams Road would have a negative and harmful impact on the Bird Sanctuary, which has not been fully assessed.

 vii.          The Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment report claims there would be a minimal benefit to biodiversity at 18 Adams Road but did not even address the potential negative impact to the Bird Sanctuary, which would include additional noise, disturbance and light pollution during and after the development is completed. 

viii.          Believed this application should be refused, and a proper assessment of the biodiversity harm to the Bird Sanctuary should be completed and weighed against the minimal benefit at 18 Adams Road.

   ix.          The Ecological Appraisal is focused on the ecological impact at 18 Adams Road, with barely mention of the impact on the neighbouring Bird Sanctuary. 

    x.          The Ecological Appraisal does note that great crested newts are present at the Bird Sanctuary but fails to mention the development’s proximity to notable habitats and plants, birds, and reptiles. 

   xi.          The Appraisal fails to address the valuable ecological site next to 18 Adams Road, which should surely be considered carefully in such assessments.

 xii.          Giving permission to this application would set a very dangerous precedent for the Council, by allowing development next to protected wildlife sites to be subjected to no more scrutiny than developments which occur in already built-up areas. 

xiii.          The Bird Sanctuary was a protected County Wildlife site, so it seemed unreasonable that the unique and valuable nature of this area has not been considered within the process, and that protection of sites such as this is not being given the attention due to it within the planning process.

xiv.          Hoped the committee would hear the clear public opinion on this issue, and refuse permission to this application, and take this as an opportunity to ensure such a valuable Open Space (NAT22 on the Policies Map) is protected.

 

The Delivery Manager Development Management: addressed the Committee to clarify comments regarding Local Plan Policy 67. Officers agreed that Policy 67 did not apply to the application. The Policy related to the protection of open spaces, which although covered a broad area, was not meant for private gardens. The open spaces referenced were not protected by from development as there was permitted development rights.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

      i.          The application site was located within the West Cambridge conservation adjacent to Adam’s Road Bird Sanctuary which is identified as a protected open space and County wildlife site.

·       The conservation area had been characterized by generous buildings located within sustainable gardens with mature trees and planting. The proposal sought to sub divide the site to create two dwellings plots in a tandem layout would result in a form of development that would be at odds with this spacious character.

·        By virtue of the scale, massing, design, lighting impacts and siting of the northernmost dwelling would have a significant adverse impact on both the character of the conservation area and upon the special character, recreational and amenity value of the ARBS.

·       The proposal would result in  moderate less than substantial harm to the conservation area, paragraphs 202 & 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 would therefore be engaged. The public benefit of the contribution of one additional dwelling to the housing stock, is considered to be modest and does not outweigh the harm resulting from the development, consequently the proposals would be contrary to policies 52,55, 56, 57, 61 and 67 of the Cambridge Local Plan and NPPF 2021.

     ii.          The northern most house would be located near the southern most dwelling. As a result the later dwelling would gain little benefit from light space and views to the north.

·       The application fails to consider the impact of shade the retaining trees would have on the usability of the outside space of the southernmost property. The proposal would therefore result in an unreasonable future pressure of additional tree removals to improve light to the property.

·       The application also fails to demonstrate that adequate mitigation could be secured to compensate for the loss of the nine trees proposed to be removed to accommodate the development.  Consequently, the development would be contrary to policy 71 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 which resists the loss of trees of amenity or other value unless there are demonstrable public benefits that would outweigh the current and future amenity value of the trees.

   iii.          The site lies adjacent to the Adams Road Bird Sanctuary, which is designated as a County wildlife site, known to host protected species including nesting birds, bats, great crested newts and invertebrates. Due to the proximity of the built form to the ARBS and the significant loss of garden to the built form and hardstanding, the proposal would have a major negative impact on the biodiversity. It has not been demonstrated that this could be adequately mitigated against to secure biodiversity net gain. Consequently, the development would be contrary to Policy 69 and 70 of the Cambridge Local Plan, paragraph 180 of the NPPF 2021 and Natural England Guidance.