Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Dryden and Thornburrow. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes Minutes: No minutes were submitted for approval by the Committee. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
16/1134/OUT - West Cambridge Site Madingley Road - 10am PDF 2 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received an application for outline planning permission with all matters
reserved is sought for: -
Up to 370,000 sq
m of academic floor space (Class D1 space), commercial/research institute floor
space (Class B1b and sui generis research uses) of which not more than 170,000
sq m will be commercial floor space (Class B1b). -
Up to 2,500sqm of
nursery floorspace (Class D1). -
Up to 4,000sqm of
retail/food and drink floorspace (Classes A1-A5). -
Up to 4,100sqm
and not less than 3,000sqm for assembly and leisure floor space; -
Up to 5,700sqm of
sui generis uses, including an energy centre and data centre; -
Associated
infrastructure, including roads (including adaptions to highway junctions on
Madingley Road), pedestrian, cycle and vehicle routes, parking, drainage, open
spaces, landscaping and earthworks; and demolition of existing buildings and
breaking up of hard standing. The Interim
Management Support updated her report by referring to updated wording of
conditions 9, 10 (plus informative), 22 (plus informative) and 23 in her
presentation. Phasing (as amended – shown with strike through and
underlining) 9. Prior to or concurrently
with the submission of the first reserved matters application for any
development on the site, an Initial Site Wide Phasing Plan which accords with
the S106 triggers shall be submitted to the local planning authority for
approval. From the date of the approval of the Initial Site Wide Phasing Plan
an The Initial Site
Wide Phasing Plan shall include the expected sequence of delivery of
development of the following elements: a)
Provision of reserved
matters parcels including amount of floor area b)
Interventions to primary
and secondary roads c)
Junction improvements d)
Provision of
primary/secondary pedestrian and cycle links e)
Strategic foul surface
water features and SUDS f)
Car parking including
provision of EV charging points g)
Provision of cycle
parking h)
Cycle and pedestrian
routes and links i)
Strategic electricity
and telecommunications networks j)
Environmental mitigation
measures and landscaped areas k)
Provision of on-site
amenities and open space l)
Public transport
enhancements m)
Energy infrastructure including
the installation of gas fired boilers No development
approved under the first reserved matters application shall commence until such
a time as the Initial Site Wide Phasing Plan has been approved. The Site Wide
Phasing Plan shall then be updated and submitted with each reserved matters
application to provide a position statement on progress and delivery of all the
elements a) – Reserve Matters
Applications - Requirements for all reserved matters applications (as amended – shown with underlining) 10. Reserved Matters
Applications for all future development parcels shall be accompanied by the
following: a)
A plan defining the
extent of the development parcel. b)
Supporting statement,
including: ·
Relationship with reserved matters applications
already approved. ·
Contribution to the vision for West Cambridge set
out in the Design and Access Statement Supplement and Design Guidelines. c)
A schedule identifying
the disposition of uses and amount of development within the development parcel
including the gross internal area of all uses. d)
Estimated timing of any outstanding plots under
construction within Phase one. e)
A statement which has
regard to the triggers in the S106 Agreement, details of mitigation within that
phase. f)
A review of any previous
monitoring and travel demand measures being delivered including traffic surveys
and public transport use. g)
A Transport Assessment and
a linked air quality assessment together with a schedule of the mitigation
measures required. h)
The timing and provision and opening of access
points into the site. i)
Updated Travel Plan (including progress on travel plan
implementation to date). j)
Statement demonstrating compliance with the Site
Wide Parking Strategy (required by condition 21). k)
Open space, any interim open space and delivery of
north – south green corridors. l)
Strategic surface and foul surface water features
and SuDS. m) Strategic
electricity and telecommunications networks. n)
Sustainability Statement and details of energy and
heat networks. o)
Environmental mitigation measures and landscaped
areas. p)
Public Art strategy. q)
Waste management and minimisation plan. s)
Amenities Delivery
Statement setting out how the development accords with the principles of the
Amenities Delivery Strategy. The Statement shall include an updated baseline
position of the current provision of amenities on the site; the amount of
development which has been delivered (D1/B1 floor space); estimated numbers of
staff and students regularly using the site and the current ratios of amenities
to number of users on the site. t)
Design Guidelines Statement that demonstrates how
the application accords with the approved Design Guidelines. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reserved matters applications shall conform
to the approved documents. New informative to inform condition 10 Informative: Env Health – Air Quality
Informative, Condition 10. Requirements for all reserved matters
application any revised/updated air quality impact assessment and local air
quality mitigation measures/scheme (including Electric Vehicle Charge Point provision) shall include consideration of the air
quality baseline conditions, construction and operational phase impacts,
cumulative impacts and any mitigation required. If a detailed Air Quality
Assessment with atmospheric dispersion modelling is required, it should be
carried out in accordance with the most up to date and relevant
national/industry best practice guidance documents. The latest
available emission factors, background maps and conversion factors shall be
used. Guidance may be updated to reflect changes in Government policy;
the latest versions of the relevant local policy and guidance should be
consulted. Prior to carrying out the assessment, the applicant must
discuss the specific details with the Environmental Health team to ensure that
the AQA will consider all relevant matters and comply with current policy
requirements. The Air Quality Assessment shall have regard to/be in
accordance with the scope, methodologies and requirements of relevant sections
of the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary
Planning Document, (Adopted January 2020’ or as superseded https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/greater-cambridge-sustainable-design-and-construction-spd - section 3.6
- Pollution (pages 76-144) and in particular subsection ‘Air Quality -
Cambridge’ pages 113 to 128. Due regard should also be given to
relevant and current up to date Government/national and industry British
Standards, Codes of Practice and best practice technical guidance. Reserved Matters Applications - Site Wide Parking
Strategy: Car Parking, EV Charging and Car Club (as amended – shown with strike through and underlining) 22. Prior to, or concurrently with the first
submission of reserved matters application, a Site Wide Parking Strategy shall
be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The strategy
shall set out how parking provision will be phased throughout the development
to ensure that a balance between sustainable travel provision is balanced with
adequate on-site parking. The Strategy should identify how existing
(underutilised) infrastructure is used, as well as temporary provision for parking,
contractor parking during construction, and the phased delivery of Multi-Storey
Car Parks. In providing this phasing the Strategy should identify the proposed
Multi-Storey Car Park at the north east of the site, accessed of Clerk Maxwell
Road as the final phase car park, and any reserved matters application for
this building shall demonstrate the measures to reduce the need to travel to
the site by car that have been implemented. This shall be demonstrated through
providing details of: a)
Provision of cycle hubs and other cycle parking on
the site b)
Facilities and storage for electric bikes c)
Provision of segregated cycleways and pedestrian
routes d)
Public transport provided through the site
including bus stop provision e)
Car sharing schemes f)
University parking permit allocation policy g)
Any other relevant on or off-site mitigation
measures provided which reduce the need to travel to the site by car. The total number of car parking spaces for
Phase One should not exceed 2,565 spaces with at least 5% of these spaces for
disabled uses. The total number of car parking spaces for the full development
should not exceed 4,359 spaces with at least 5% of these spaces for disabled
uses. The Site Wide Parking Strategy should also
set out a site wide Electric Vehicle Charging Point
provision and infrastructure strategy including an implementation plan. The Site Wide Parking Strategy
shall be appropriate for the proposed end use(s) of the development and shall
provide full details of the provision of allocated parking spaces for dedicated
electric vehicle charging in line with the principles set out in the NPPF, the
Cambridge Local Plan and Cambridge City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan. The strategy shall include consideration of
both active (slow, fast and rapid) and passive electric vehicle charge point
provision and design to enable the charging of electric vehicles in safe,
accessible and convenient locations. The Site Wide Parking Strategy
shall include the following:
1.
In Key Phase 1 dedicated slow electric vehicle
charge points with a minimum power rating output of 7kW for at least 50% of new
permanent non-residential parking spaces and at least 10 Rapid Charge Points
and 10 at least Fast Charge Points shall be installed across the site. 2.
For development beyond Key Phase 1, slow
electric vehicle charge points with a minimum power rating output of 7kW shall
be installed for at least 90% of new permanent non-residential parking spaces,
or an alternative combination of slow, fast and rapid charge points in a
strategy to be agreed with the local planning authority which should reflect
demand for provision, available technology and Cambridge City Council policy at
that time. 3.
Additional passive electric vehicle charge
provision of the necessary infrastructure including capacity in the connection
to the local electricity distribution network and electricity distribution
board, as well as the provision of cabling to parking spaces for all remaining
car parking spaces to facilitate and enable the future installation and
activation of additional active electric vehicle charge points as required. 4.
Electric vehicle charge points shall be
compliant with BS7671 and BS61851 or as superseded. 5.
The implementation plan shall set out the
schedule for delivery of the EV infrastructure. Information should include
numbers of charge points, intentions for active and passive provision,
location, layout (including placement of EV infrastructure), Charge Rates of
active EV charge points (slow, rapid or fast) and availability of power supply. The strategy shall include the provision
of a minimum of one car club or pool car vehicle with one dedicated car club or car pool parking space per
10,000sqm of new floor space. The new dedicated car parking spaces shall be for
the exclusive use of car club or pool car vehicle(s). The car club parking
spaces shall be provided in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the
first occupation of the development that triggers an additional space and shall be maintained and retained
thereafter. New informative to inform condition 22 Informative: Env Health – Site Wide Parking
Strategy, Condition 22. The Site
Wide Parking Strategy, in particular the EV charging provision details,
shall be in accordance with the scope, methodologies and requirements of
relevant sections of the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and
Construction Supplementary Planning Document, (Adopted January 2020, or as
superseded, https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/greater-cambridge-sustainable-design-and-construction-spd - section 3.6
- Pollution (pages 76-144) and in particular subsection ‘Air Quality -
Cambridge’ pages 113 to 128. Due regard should also be given to
relevant and current up to date Government/national and industry British
Standards, Codes of Practice and best practice technical guidance. Reserved Matters Applications - Cycle Parking (as amended – shown with
underlining) 23. Any reserved matters application
for new buildings or open space shall include details of facilities for the
covered, secure parking of bicycles for use in connection with the approved
development and demonstrate that the provision is in accordance with the
approach to cycle parking approved as part of the Design Guidelines for the
site and shall apply the principles within LTN 1/20 (or its successor).
The facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before
use of the development commences and shall thereafter be retained and shall not
be used for any other purpose. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from Chairman, Clerk Maxwell Road Residents Committee: i.
The application should satisfy
Local Plan policies 80 and 81. ii.
Expressed concern the application
would impact on traffic flow and parking in the area, specifically Clerk
Maxwell Road. iii.
The planned car park would open
onto Clerk Maxwell Road. Cyclist commuters would also use this access,
increasing traffic flow pressure. iv.
Proposed JJ Thomson Avenue as an
alternative access route. a.
Little or no impact on the
greenway. b.
Road surface already exists. c.
Left turn off JJ Thomson Avenue. d.
no tail back to Madingley Road. e.
Provides vehicle reservoir. f.
Keeps site traffic on site. v.
It was better to keep cars in one
large car park than two smaller ones. a.
Concentrate parking near M11. b.
Away from residential. c.
Traffic off Madingley Road. d.
Partial sound barrier for site. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from CamCycle: i.
It had been five years since the
application had been submitted. The Applicant had made some positive changes. ii.
Expected an increase in bus/bike
traffic in Silver Street due to the application. iii.
Referred to the Greater Cambridge
Partnership scheme in the Officer’s report. Public transport was a key issue
for the site. iv.
Took issue with the routes
suggested as these would: a.
exacerbate existing traffic flow
issues; b.
make the streets unsuitable for
other users if buses increased traffic levels to those higher than road
capacity could safely contain. Professor Neely (Applicant) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. Councillor Nethsingha (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application: i.
It had taken time for the
application to progress to this stage. ii.
Key issues: a.
Transport.
i. The
proposal enormously increased the number of people and volume of traffic
on-site.
ii. Highway
Authority comments had led the University to focus more on public transport.
iii. The
situation needed to be monitored and managed to review the impact of the site
on the area as detailed applications came forward in future.
iv. Expressed
disappointment that the planned car park remained at the Clerk Maxwell Road end
of the site. This junction could not handle the extra volume in traffic.
v. Sought
clarification that transport routes remained within the gift of Greater
Cambridge Partnership and would not be set by the City Council Planning
Committee at this meeting. b.
Height of new building. c.
Light pollution. Councillor Porrer
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include:
i.
Condition 22 or 23 should reference provision
for adaptable bikes and cargo bikes.
ii.
An informative encouraging the Applicant to
recycle grey water. It was agreed in the meeting that condition 22 was the
appropriate condition to amend. These amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor
Gawthrope Wood proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include
an informative to discourage the use of gas boilers, or to justify their use if
implemented. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for outline planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the prior completion of an
Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
ii.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendments in presentation (listed above);
iii.
delegated
authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the amended conditions; iv.
amend
Condition 22 to reference provision for adaptable bikes and cargo bikes;
v.
informatives
included on the planning permission in respect of: a.
encouraging
the Applicant to recycle grey water; b.
discouraging
the use of gas
boilers, or to justify their use if implemented. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00264/FUL - Blocks B2 & F2 Devonshire Quarter Devonshire Road - 14.15pm PDF 257 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of two new buildings
comprising Class E(g)i/E(g)ii floorspace including ancillary accommodation/
facilities with associated plant and cycle parking for Block F2 and an
Aparthotel (Class C1) with multi-storey car park for Network Rail, including
car and cycle parking, for Block B2 with associated plant, hard and soft
landscaping and permanent access from Devonshire Road to the Cambridge Station
Car Park, utilising the existing pedestrian and cycle access, restricted to
emergency access to the railway only. The Area Development Manager updated his report
by referring to updated condition wording 9 and 11 and the addition of
condition 9a on the amendment sheet. (Amendments shown with strike through and
underlining/italics.) Proposed revised condition 9 9. Behind One Station Square, a 3m wide zone to
enable cyclists to pass and connect to Station Road from Great Northern Road
shall be maintained at all times. The bollards, trees and benches
as shown on plan ref: MMD-217382-C-DR-10-XX-5028 Reason: In the interests of providing a
high-quality cycling link through the CB1 areas (Cambridge Local Plan 2018
policies 25, 56, 57, 59 and 80). Proposed additional condition 9A 9A. Prior to the commencement of development of B2,
a Taxi Management Plan (TMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The TMP shall include: a.
Transitional
arrangements for the management of over-ranked taxis within the CB1 locality
displaced by the B2 building, including arrangements for the provision of on
the ground marshals (number, time, duration and location), enforcement scope
and monitoring. b.
Permanent
arrangements and their phased implementation to assist with the management of
taxi arrivals and departures from Station Square including reasonable
endeavours to utilise ANPR technology and to develop a digital application for
use by taxi drivers. It shall include monitoring provisions. c.
The
results of stakeholder engagement which has informed the proposed transitional
and permanent arrangements as per a) and b) above. The permanent arrangements set out in the approved
TMP shall be subject to a TMP Review, submitted to the local planning authority
immediately following the expiry of one year following the commencement of
development of B2. It shall include the results of any monitoring, consultation
with stakeholders and suggested revisions to the TMP as appropriate. The TMP
and any revisions thereof shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details prior to the commencement of development of B2 and shall continue to be
implemented for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of encouraging the
effective management of taxis within the CB1 area (Cambridge Local Plan 2018
policies 25, 56, 57, 59 and 80). Proposed revised condition 11 Great Northern Road Zebra Crossing 11. Prior to the occupation of the F2 building, the
proposed zebra crossing to the immediate west of the Great Northern Road
mini-roundabout as shown on plan reference MMD-217382-C-DR-10-XX-5027_P7 shall
be provided as part of the public realm improvements unless the outcome of a
Road Safety Audit indicates that it should not, in which case an alternative
scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and provided within the same timescale. The final positioning
of the crossing should be located as close to the eastern termination point of
Great Northern Road as allowed for through the outcome of the road safety
audit. Reason: In the interests of high safety (Cambridge
Local Plan 2018 policy 80). The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from the Chair of South Petersfield Residents
Association: i.
Block B2 height and mass a.
Queried justification for
overstepping outline plan footprint by 7 metres? This appeared purely
operational, not justified in planning terms. b.
Out of scale with 2 storey homes
on Devonshire Rd and Devonshire Mews, and by comparison with F2. c.
Application would be prominent in
views along Devonshire Rd from Mill Rd. d.
Would provide no amenity to local
community. e.
Architecture was wholly
unremarkable, with no heritage connection as a gateway from the Mill Rd
Conservation Area. ii.
Displacement of over ranked CCLT
taxis a.
The fact that the station
masterplan envisaged removal of over ranking in the station car park does not
absolve the applicant of responsibility for the impacts of removing this
facility. b.
Station Area Development Framework
required waiting capacity for 30 taxis. c.
Outline plan required:
i. 20
spaces in the taxi rank (only possible if vehicles queuing to enter the rank
are also counted).
ii. 8
taxi pick up/set down bays.
iii. 16
private vehicle pick up/set down bays.
iv. 5
disabled parking bays.
v. 2
disabled drop off bays. d.
Proposed taxi management plan
refers to: “Manage the initial transition when the existing surface car park is
decommissioned (to allow construction of B2).” This will be an issue beyond the
“transition period.” e.
Expressed concern over the size of
area affected by ‘taxi waiting’. This covered the station area and nearby roads
such as Tenison Avenue, Devonshire Rd, behind One Station Square and Mill Park. f.
Took issue with the proposal that
the operation of the taxi rank will be monitored on a regular basis and any
operational issues raised with the stakeholder group. iii.
Future proofness of B2. a.
Multistorey car park likely to be
required for extension of cycle park. b.
Applicant argues convertibility is
not a material consideration. Planning policy supports our view that it is, and
therefore should be conditioned as such. iv.
Cycle route a.
Commended the Applicant on engaging
closely with residents to design and refine a protected cycle route between
Devonshire Rd and Station Rd. b.
Details are still needed for:
i. Changes
to Station Rd, e.g. to the County taxi rank.
ii. Replacement
of speed bumps on Mill Park Rd.
iii. Consistent
route signage. c.
A protected route through Station
Square was still needed for those travelling to the station, local shops and
bars; and also living in or visiting the Railyard student accommodation. v.
Great Northern Rd a.
Maximum delivery vehicle sizes
must be agreed and enforced to avoid unnecessary danger to people walking and
cycling especially through the space behind One Station Square. b.
With the loss of parking spaces on
Great Northern Rd, the remaining spaces need to be re designated for deliveries
and short stay parking (to better serve residents of the road). vi.
Great Northern Road
mini-roundabout a.
The walking route in front of F2
would be busy. b.
Suggested moving the pedestrian
crossing away from the corner of Sainsbury’s and closer to the mini-roundabout. c.
Suggested raising the crossing and
tightening corner radius out of Station Square to keep vehicle speeds low.
Alternatively, please create a conventional side road crossing arrangement. Mr Derbyshire
(Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: Cycle route A safe space was required for: i.
A cycle route during construction. ii.
A cycle route across the service yard which had a
turning head for lorries. Queried if the turning head could be retained if a
(3m) cycle lane went through it. iii.
Cyclists and pedestrians between buildings B2 and
F2. Parking iv.
The car park should be adaptable (including access
ramps and parking spaces) so it could become cycle parking in future (if there
was demand). v.
A link would then need to be installed between the
upper floor of the car park and the cycle park to facilitate entry/exit. vi.
Current cycle parking was not secure. Future parking
facilities should be. Buildings vii.
B2 was still too big and would dominate Devonshire
Rd housing. The application was different to what was given permission in
outline planning permission. viii.
B2 should not be built closer to Devonshire Rd
housing. ix.
F2 building first and higher floors stopped the
planting of trees as the floors overhung cycle routes. The ground floor had
been cut away to allow space for cycle routes. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application
for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the
reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet.
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following
minor, non-significant amendments to those conditions and/or significant
amendment or additional conditions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
20/01229/FUL - 34 Barrow Road - 16.00pm PDF 319 KB Minutes: The Planning
Officer updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet highlighting a
response of objection received from City Councillor Copley. The Planning
Officer also informed the Committee that although the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) was revised in 2021 this did not alter the assessment or
the recommendation of this application. The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from the following:
i.
Disappointed the applicant and agent had declined
to engage directly with residents.
ii.
The only amendment made by applicant in response to
resident’s objections were to reduce the ridge height by a ‘pencil length’ and
obscure glaze half of the master bedroom window on the south elevation.
iii.
Believed the Planning Officers’ determination was
not accurate by stating the application was for a two-storey dwelling; the
application was a three-storey dwelling in a conservation area defined by
two-story houses.
iv.
No. 36 Barrow Road had been described as diminutive
in the Planning Officer’s report. The dwelling had a roof height higher than 9
other houses in proximity. However, it would be made to feel diminutive next to
the proposed three-storey building, 662sqm, with a higher ridge height of 1m.
v.
The proposed massing was too big for the immediate
context.
vi.
The overbearing design would affect the residential
amenity in lieu of the boundary trees.
vii.
There would be no opportunity to plant natural
screening along the boundary behind the annex, garage, and bin store.
viii.
Questioned why a boundary tree planting plan not
been insisted upon.
ix.
The proposed replacement of mature boundary trees
between the houses was not feasible.
x.
The application needed to be redesigned to preserve
the boundary trees and uphold the character of the conservation area.
xi.
The footprint of the single storey annex (36 Barrow
Road), garden and bin store had always been built up to the boundary of 34
Barrow Road. The boundary walls had not changed.
xii.
Requested the same condition for the first-floor
window position for fixed obscure glazing be included to the five third storey
windows at head heighted.
xiii.
Was one of thirty-four residents who had objected
to this application.
xiv.
The application has put the conservation area at
risk by breaching the City Council’s terms of reference and would set a harmful
precedence. Public speaker on
behalf of 32 Barrow Road
i.
The application had failed to acknowledge the
limitation of the plot and believed it to be over ambitious with too much
accommodation on site.
ii.
The submission failed to disguise the scale and
massing and causing significant harm to the character of the conservation area.
iii.
In addition to the loss of trees on the site, the
root protection of trees on 32 Barrow Road would be compromised.
iv.
The room in the roof space was itself a family home
sized accommodation of 146m2 exceeding all national space standards for family
homes.
v.
The proposal would cause significant harm to the
residents of 32 Barrow Road due to the domineering and overbearing appearance
when viewed from the garden and the rear facing rooms in the home; the
application filled up the entire width of the plot of 32 Barrow Road.
vi.
The attempt to disguise the bulk of the proposed
property did not work. The front elevation and the rear elevation were too far
apart, the side elevations that give way to the harm.
vii.
The harm was less than substantial harm to the
conservation area; the statutory test of such harm was that there must be
public benefit to outweigh that harm. The proposed replacement home was not
sufficient not outweigh that harm.
viii.
Asked that the Committee protect the conservation
area in the area. The following written statement was read out by the
Committee Manger on behalf of a local resident:
i.
Strongly objected to this proposal, as many others
have done in the past. Both myself and many other residents were shocked that
it had been permitted to reach committee stage.
ii.
The design of the proposed dwelling continues to
grossly offend the principles of the conservation area. It is an over imposing
structure that negatively dominates the residences around it, steals light,
adversely impacts the street scene, damages the natural environment and will be
harmful to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Porson and Barrow Roads.
The City Council should be mindful of this harm, and its legal and moral
responsibility to its residents.
iii.
Despite significant objections by residents since
last year, the proposal essentially remains largely unchanged since these
objections were made. This is a designated conservation area, and the City
Council is ignoring the principles of this designation. Conservation areas are
meant to have extremely strict rules about development that may infringe on a
designated area. We are hopeful that the Council will be transparent about why
they have chosen to be so dismissive of this in this particular care, on this
plot. The Council has not permitted many less intrusive schemes in conservation
areas in Cambridge. This lack of consistency needs to be defended in relation
to this application.
iv.
You will also no doubt be aware that the 20th
Century Society has made strong representations to the Council, sharing the
expert view that the existing house is of architectural merit, such that it
should be designated a Building of Local Interest. The proposal should be
refused even on this point alone, much as there are so many other reasons to
refuse it, and little of merit to support it.
v.
Hoped that the City Council Planning Department
would heed the overwhelming objections to this proposal and refuse it. We hope
that the view that the existing dwelling will be designated a building of local
interest. We are hopeful we will not need to pursue resolution of this matter
in the Courts. Mike Derbyshire,
Bidwells (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Hauk
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Agreed with the Planning Officer that the
application provided accessible living accommodation and a good level of indoor
and outdoor amenity.
ii.
Did not agree with the Planning Officer’s comments
the proposed development would preserve the appearance of the conservation area
and would not have significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding
occupants.
iii.
The Barrow Road Conservation Area Appraisal from
June 2016 outlined the features and characteristics of the Barrow Road area
that would be diminished by the proposed development.
iv.
The appraisal stated that “The road is
distinguished by its low-density layout with wide green verges planted with
flowering cherry trees behind which stand detached two-storey houses” that give
a “predominant impression of greenery and openness“ (section 3.1). “The
relationship between the buildings and their leafy setting is particularly
important for the road’s distinctive character. “ (4.). 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.”
v.
The recommendation of the appraisal emphasised
preservation of the roofs, the common ridge height and the character of the
road should be preserved.
vi.
In order to develop a design that was appropriate
for the immediate neighbourhood in the Barrow Road conservation area there is
no evidence that the applicant, or their agent, proactively engaged with local
residents outside the generic planning process. vii.
The proposed development had been referred to as a
two-storey building. This would appear
as a three-storey building which would impact the local amenity. viii.
The proposal was different to all other houses in
the area who have changed their two-storey storage space into living space and
this would stand out with its three-storey appearance.
ix.
The application proposed a third storey of 146m2
occupying most of the footprint in depth and breadth, which was out of context
with the neighbourhood and character of the conservation area.
x.
The floorspace would increase by 2.8 times, twice
that of neighbouring properties and the ridge height would be more that 10%
higher of its closest neighbours.
xi.
The proposed building would have the highest ridge
height in the neighbourhood by over 9m. The case officer acknowledged that the
ridge height had been reduced, but this was only by 17cm. xii.
Ridge heights varied across Barrow Road, which was
a long road, but this application would stand out in terms of height and
massing within the immediate neighbourhood. xiii.
Section 6.2 of the Planning Officer’s report
referred to 36 Barrow Road as diminutive. This was not the case. xiv.
The application was not sympathetic to the local
characteristics and history; it was not consistent with the height and form of
neighbouring properties and over all street scene. xvi.
With regards to the application for 33 Porson Road,
close to the application, the Tree Officer commented on “the important boundary
trees that contribute significantly to the character of the conservation area”.
As a result, the owners redesigned their building to sit further away from the
boundary trees (just under 6 metres). xvii.
According to policy development would not be
permitted which involves felling of trees of amenity or other value unless
there are benefits to the public; asked what those were benefits as believed to
be none. Councillor Copley
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application through a
written statement read by the Committee Manager:
i.
it is a great concern about the balance between
tree and other habitat loss in the City of Cambridge in the context of ongoing
development.
ii.
Reference the view of the Tree Officer which
was as follows: "the development requires the loss of a number of
trees that will impact on the contribution the site makes to amenity and
character of the conservation area." As we have heard at the recent
Full Council meeting, many trees replanted die. Furthermore, the time taken for
newly planted trees to reach maturity is an order of several decades.
iii.
Climate change is an urgent and pressing issue and
has been declared as a climate emergency by the City Council in 2019.
iv.
Object to the assumption that newly planted trees
can be counted as equivalent to mature trees (irrespective of whether they have
suffer disease). Policy 59 part b states that "existing features including
trees, natural habitats, boundary treatments and historic street furniture
and/or surfaces that positively contribute to the quality and character of an
area are retained and protected".
v.
Ask the committee to request the applicant finds a
proposal that does not require the loss of the mature trees on this site. I
cannot see that this application will provide any other improvements for the
residents of the City of Cambridge - as it will not alleviate the housing
crisis (via for example providing affordable homes) and results in the loss of
a building of unusual architecture from a celebrated architect (see the
objection on the planning portal listed under Jesus College).
vi.
Understood that planning committees were very
restricted in their decision making but put to you that policy 59.b should not be
breached via acceptance of this application." Councillor
Thornburrow who had given apologies for the meeting addressed the Committee
about the application through a written statement read by the Committee
Manager:
i.
This is an important Conservation Area in
Cambridge. Most the homes were designed by the same architect,
Norman Myers, between 1931 and 1939, while the building under consideration is
one of two modernist buildings in this important conservation
area. It was built in 1956 to a design by David Roberts.
ii.
From our planning training we know that in a
conservation area, special attention should be given to development that
preserves or enhances the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character
or appearance of the conservation area.
iii.
There is legal precedent that this duty creates a
“strong presumption” against granting planning permission for developments that
would harm a conservation area, and that therefore decision makers must give
considerable importance to any harm to the conservation area arising from the
proposal.
iv.
Believed this proposal would cause harm to the
Conservation Area and should be rejected on these grounds.
v.
The Design and Access Statement for the proposed
replacement house at 34 Barrow Road claims that it: ‘will be of an Arts &
Crafts style of a similar scale to and with details seen on other nearby
dwellings’ (para 3.0). This is highly questionable.
vi.
There is a marked architectural consistency in the
houses in Barrow Road, which were mostly designed by the same architect, Norman
Myers, between 1931 and 1939. They were individual designs but shared a basic
design strategy of a two-storey rectangular block across the site frontage,
with a moderately steep, hipped roof of plain tiles without dormers; the eaves
height aligning with the first-floor window head. This basic element was varied
by selecting from a palette of secondary architectural features, producing a
pleasant and subdued mixture of regularity and variety. vii.
The proposed house does not share this design
strategy and does not form a natural addition to the Myers streetscape: it is
considerably larger, taller, and coarser. The stated design objective is to fit
into the existing context, but it fails. viii.
The essence of Arts & Crafts architecture is
not the haphazard sprinkling of architectural details that were popular in the
first decade of the 20th century, but an architectural integrity that unifies
function, form, material and details in a considered and satisfying whole. An
Arts & Crafts building can be in many different styles, but a feeble
pastiche like the proposed replacement house at 34 Barrow Road cannot be
considered a valid Arts & Crafts design.
ix.
The proposed replacement house attempts to pack a greatly
increased floor area on the site and incorporates a large second floor (second
floors are not characteristic of Barrow Roadhouses). Others have written about
the functional shortcomings, and headroom at second floor is a real issue, but
it is not my concern here
x.
The street elevation is dominated by two gables
(also not characteristic of Barrow Roadhouses), which have a roof pitch of
about 50 degrees, but to accommodate the large second floor area the roof
between these gables is spread. It has a substantially lower pitch of about 38
degrees which is not shown on the elevation drawings.
xi.
David Roberts (1911-82) was the most important
local architect working in Cambridge in the 1950s and ‘60s. Many of Roberts’
buildings have been demolished, but this should not be taken as a justification
for further demolition; on the contrary, increased consideration should be
given to conserving his remaining buildings. xii.
Roberts was in practice from 1948 to 1982 and 34
Barrow Road dates from 1956, only twenty years after the pre-war houses in
Barrow Road. xiii.
The intervening period was dominated by World War
II and the post-war creation of the Welfare State; the revolution in society,
politics and the economy was matched by a revolution in architecture. xiv.
Traditional styles like the late Arts & Crafts
of Norman Myers in Barrow Road were swept away. The critic John Summerson said:
‘There is now, what there was not before the war, a real school of modern
design in Great Britain. ... [There is] an agreement to be radical ... This
radicalism is the great thing in English architecture today’ (Modern
Architecture in Britain, ed. T Dannatt, 1959, p.27). David Roberts designed the
house at 34 Barrow Road in this new spirit. His design is as a strong marker of
the cultural context of the 1950s as Norman Myers’ houses are markers of the
cultural context of the 1930s; and its contribution to Cambridge’s
architectural heritage is far greater than the pastiche Arts & Crafts
design of the proposed replacement. xv.
34 Barrow Road is a good design of the 1950s. The
taut, geometrical forms and slender detailing were not the result of
penny-pinching – they were the aesthetic objective. Compare the two- storey
block at 34 Barrow Road with the side wing of Alvar Aalto’s celebrated Villa
Mairea of 1938-39, a major work of an acknowledged master of modern
architecture. Both designs have exactly the same unadorned rectangular massing
with evenly-spaced windows of similar proportions; the west-facing windows of
34 Barrow Road have the same asymmetrical arrangement of wide-and-narrow panes.
The building cost for 34 Barrow Road was £6000, a good budget for the 1950s: it
was an ambitious, deliberately radical design. xvi.
Like all buildings of the 1950s, 34 Barrow Road
falls short of today’s expectations in many respects, such as thermal
insulation, kitchen layout and design, provision of bathrooms, etc, but there
would be no difficulty in upgrading these features (just at the 1930s houses in
Barrow Road are upgraded). The size of 34 Barrow Road is also smaller than
would be expected in high-status detached house today. However, it is perfectly
possible for a sympathetic design to expand 34 Barrow Road while retaining its
architectural character and cultural significance. xvii.
The proposed replacement house at 34 Barrow Road is
a poor imitation of the Arts & Crafts style that tries to pack a greatly
increased floor area onto the site, despite functional shortcomings. It is an
inappropriate design that does not respect the quiet, unassuming quality of
Normal Myers’ pre-war houses. It fails to meet the stated objective of fitting
comfortably into the existing context and by no stretch could it be called Arts
& Crafts. xviii.
The existing house of 1956 by David Roberts is a
good design that is a strong marker of the cultural context of the 1950s. The
taut, geometrical forms and slender detailing were a deliberate aesthetic
choice, comparable to contemporary work by other major architects. The house
could be renovated to meet current performance standards, and expanded
sympathetically to retain its architectural character and cultural
significance. xix.
The replacement of David Roberts’ house by the
proposed design would impoverish the architectural heritage of Cambridge. This
view is supported by the Twentieth Century Society and Cambridge Past Present
and Future. xx.
The replacement of this significant building, with
this failed attempt to echo the Arts & Crafts style of nearby houses would
harm this conservation area. It should be refused under ·
Policy 55: Responding to context ·
Policy 57: Designing new buildings ·
Policy 61: Conservation and enhancement of
Cambridge’s historic environment ·
Policy 62: Local heritage assets ·
NPPF para 124, 127, 194 and 196 xxi.
Others argue that the application should also be
refused under Policies 50, 52, 58, 59, 60 and 70. All the arguments put forward
should be considered as grounds for refusal. Councillor
Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
It should be recognised that Barrow Road was a very
special road within Cambridge.
ii.
Residents had chosen to keep the road private,
retain the gas lighting and preserve the arts and crafts style of the house.
iii.
The existing house at 34 Barrow Road did not
intrude on the street scape and was low profile.
iv.
Agreed that development needed as the house had
stood empty for a long period of time. The proposed replacement was for a
massive structure and out of scale with all the houses in Barrow Road.
v.
The proposed application would dominate the immediate
neighbouring properties and cause unnecessary loss of trees.
vi.
Other houses in the area were half the size to the
proposed application. Special attention should be given to development in a
conservation area which should preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the area. vii.
The proposed building was clearly three-storey and
should not be referred to as a two-storey building. viii.
Would urge the Committee to reject the case
officers’ comments that the proposed house would sit well in the road. The Committee: Resolved
(by 2 votes to 2, and on the Chair’s
casting vote) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer.
i.
With delegated authority to Officers to draft the
conditions of the windows on the second floor (if the windows were above 1.7m
in height they would not be obscured glazed but if below a condition would be
added for these windows to be obscured glazed) in consultation with the Chair,
Vice Chair and Spokes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00383/FUL - 5 Luard Close - 16.30pm PDF 177 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for demolition of existing house and garage and
erection of 5-bedroom house with integral garage and new crossover with dropped
kerb. The
Planning Officer referred to details on the amendment sheet highlighting the
additional condition requested by the Highways Authority and the drainage
condition previously recommended by Highways would be removed as no longer
considered necessary. Drawing number 6321-1 01B shows that the private water
generated by the site will not fall towards the adopted public highway and thus
the condition requested by the Highway Authority in its comments of 6th July is
not required. The Plan also shows a soakaway in the front garden,
and the Highway Authority requests the following condition be applied in
respect of the same: A proposed soakaway to the front of the property be
situated so no part of the same is within 5m of any part of the carriageway in
Luard Close (this would comply with the guidance within the current building
regulations). Reason: to prevent any potential future degradation of
the adopted public highway. The Highway Authority seeks that the ‘site plan’
submitted on the 19th July does not form part of the approved documents as it
contains information that will relate to the Traffic Management Plan and this
has the potential to create conflict between two documents. Councillor
Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer's recommendation that a condition
be added to include an EV charging point on site. This
amendment was carried unanimously Councillor
Porrer requested that the wording to condition 20 be revised to ensure
biodiversity net gain and an additional informative added to encourage the use
of air source heat pumps as part of the condition regarding carbon reduction. These
amendments were carried unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
iii.
Informative (with delegated authority for officers
to draft this in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes) to be
included on the planning permission for the use of air source heat pumps. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00437/FUL - 31 Newnham Road - 17.00pm PDF 168 KB Minutes: This item was deferred. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00434/HFUL - 167 Chesterton Road - 17.30pm PDF 87 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that an informative be added regarding a party wall agreement. This
amendment was carried unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer and the following: i. informative (with delegated authority for officers to draft this in consultation with Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes) to be included on the planning permission for a party wall agreement. |