Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
134 21/01437/FUL - 18 Adams Road PDF 419 KB
Minutes:
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:
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)
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?
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.