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: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Introduction by Chair to the Forum Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control
Forum. He stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: No apologies were noted. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an application shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer before the meeting. Minutes: No declarations were made. |
|
Application and Petition Details 17/0675/FUL Land to the rear of 1 Fen Road and 179 - 183 Water Lane, Cambridge CB4 1PB Application
No: 17/0675/FUL Site Address: Land to the rear of 1 Fen Road & rear of
179 – 183 Water Lane, Cambridge CB4 1PB Description: Demolition of existing garages and
erection of three 2bed dwellings with associated landscaping and access arrangements. Applicant: Fallowfield
Property Ltd Agent: PIP
Architecture Address: Land
To The Rear Of 1 Fen Road And Rear Of 179 - 183 Water
Street Lead Petitioner: Resident
of Water Street, Cambridge Case Officer: Sav Patel Text of Petition: 1)
Lack
of Privacy The 2006 Cambridge Local Plan
states: 310 Subdivision of Existing Plots Residential development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties be permitted if it will have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy… The Cambridge Local Plan 2014 proposed submission states: Policy 50: Residential space standards In providing
appropriate amenity space, developments should: F. Address issues of
overlooking an enclosure, which may otherwise impact detrimentally proposed
dwelling and any neighbouring dwellings: The application conflicts with the local plan as follows: a) The ground for back windows of P and P3 are only 17 to 24m from the back windows of 177, 179, 181 and 183 Water Lane. b) The garden of P1 has a direct inside Hodge house flats which are only 7m away. 2)
Overbearing
sense of enclosure 3/10 Subdivision of Existing Plots Residential development within the garden
area or curtilage of existing properties will not be permitted if it will: a.
have a
significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties through…
an overbearing sense of enclosure The application conflicts with the local plan and follows: a) The scheme is still completely out of scale for small enclosed plot and is not the general character of the surrounding. The outlook from opening on the elevation of Water Street dwelling, particularly the first and second floors, will be dramatically altered with the addition of the proposed development. b) Proposed buildings are significantly taller than the two most recent precedents of new buildings behind the road frontage: i) the studio behind 163/165 water Street was limited to 1.5 storeys. ii) 23a Fen Road was required to be dug 1m below the surface to limit it to 1.5 storeys and prevented overlooking neighbours. 3)
Noise
nuisance The 2006 Local Plan states: 3/10 Subdivision of
existing plots Residential
development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties not be permitted will: a.
have a significant
adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties through… The
generation on traffic or noise nuisance; The application conflicts with the local plan as follows: a)
The creation of three new two bed dwellings will
generate noise levels in the garden and the parking spaces in disproportion
with the scale in the enclosed nature of the plot. 4)
Loss of Parking The 2006 local plan states: 3/10 Subdivision of existing plots Residential
development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties will: b. provide accessory parking spaces for the proposed and ... view the full agenda text for item 17/6/DCF Minutes: Description: Demolition of existing garages and
erection of three x2 bed dwellings with associated landscaping and access
arrangements Applicant: Fallowfield Property Ltd Agent: PIP
Architecture Lead Petitioner: Resident of
Water Street, Cambridge Case Officer: Sav Patel Text of Petition: 1)
Lack of Privacy The 2006 Cambridge Local Plan states: 310 Subdivision of Existing Plots Residential
development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties be permitted if it will have a significant adverse impact on
the amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy… The Cambridge Local Plan 2014 proposed submission states: Policy 50: Residential space standards In providing
appropriate amenity space, developments should: F. Address issues
of overlooking an enclosure, which may otherwise impact detrimentally proposed
dwelling and any neighbouring dwellings: The application conflicts with the local plan as follows: a)
The ground for back windows of P and P3 are only 17
to 24m from the back windows of 177, 179, 181 and 183 Water Lane. b)
The garden of P1 has a direct inside Hodge house
flats which are only 7m away. 2)
Overbearing sense of enclosure 3/10 Subdivision of Existing Plots Residential development within the garden area or
curtilage of existing properties will not be permitted if it will: a.
have a significant
adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties through… an
overbearing sense of enclosure The application conflicts with the local plan and follows: a)
The scheme is still completely out of scale for
small enclosed plot and is not the general character of the surrounding. The
outlook from opening on the elevation of Water Street dwelling, particularly
the first and second floors, will be dramatically altered with the addition of
the proposed development. b)
Proposed buildings are significantly taller than
the two most recent precedents of new buildings behind the road frontage: i) the studio behind 163/165 water Street was limited to
1.5 storeys. ii) 23a Fen Road was required to be dug 1m below
the surface to limit it to 1.5 storeys and prevented overlooking neighbours. 3)
Noise nuisance The 2006 Local Plan states: 3/10 Subdivision
of existing plots Residential development
within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties not be permitted will: a.
have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring properties through… The generation on traffic or noise nuisance; The application conflicts with the local plan as follows: a)
The creation of three new two bed dwellings will
generate noise levels in the garden and the parking spaces in disproportion
with the scale in the enclosed nature of the plot. 4)
Loss of Parking The 2006 local plan states: 3/10 Subdivision of existing plots Residential
development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties will: b.
provide accessory
parking spaces for the proposed and existing properties; The application conflicts with the local plan as follows: it proposes to replace 12 garages with three
two-bedroom houses and three parking. Each health will require parking for two
cars (possibly if house is let to multiple co-tenants) which creates loss of 15
parking spaces. There is not space to accommodate 15 extra vehicles on Fallowfield. Nine extra cars are likely to be parked on Fen
Road and Water Street. Existing parking on Fen Road and Water Street is
regularly fully occupied. 5)
Aesthetics out of Character The 2006 Cambridge Local Plan states: 3/10 Subdivision
of Existing Plots Residential
development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties will not
be permitted if it will: c.
Detract from the
prevailing character and appearance of the area: 3.29…While new
residential accommodation is welcomed, the development of existing gardens or
curtilages needs to be handled carefully in order to avoid creating new
developments, which adversely affect the amenities of local residents or the
character of the area. Changes that could be made to overcome concerns We would suggest building fewer, lower dwellings. The scheme should be
restricted to the brown field only. Alternative parking arrangements should be provided nearby for the local
residents currently storing their cars in the garages. Properties should be constructed using materials in sympathy with
neighbouring properties. Case by
Applicant’s Agent Chris Senior made the following points: 1)
Described the current scheme,
context of the site and how the current iteration differed from the previous
scheme. 2)
Responded to concerns raised by
the Petitioners as follows: a)
Lack of Privacy. · The distance
between the proposed property and existing neighbouring properties met Local
Plan guidance. It was similar to other (existing) properties in the area. · Trees would
provide some screening. · No overlooking was
expected as properties would be set back. b)
Overbearing sense of enclosure. · Statutory
consultees supported the scheme. · The design
complimented existing buildings in the area, as did scale and massing in the
new scheme. · The height of the
new dwelling was appropriate for a new build, no
negative impacted was expected on the character of the area. c)
Noise nuisance. · The application
would replace garages with houses. It was hard to tell if this would increase noise
in the area. d)
Loss of Parking. · Information was
being sought on whether the (existing) garages were being used. The Applicant
was liaising with the Planning Officer to determine this. · The maximum number of parking spaces were being applied for through 17/0675/FUL. e)
Aesthetics out of character. · Properties in the
application matched the boundaries, size and scale of (existing) neighbouring
properties. Gardens in this application maybe bigger. Case by
Petitioners Quentin Gueranger spoke on behalf of local
residents. He made the following points: 3)
3 planning applications had been
made in 13 months. Neighbours objected to all 3. 4)
Specific objections: a)
Invasion of privacy due to
overlooking from proposed development and lack of screening through trees in
gardens. b)
Overdevelopment of a small plot. · Garden
grabbing. · Sense
of enclosure. · Noise
concerns. · “Bunker
feel” to the design. · Overbearing. c)
Residents wanted fewer, lower
buildings. d)
Design not in keeping with the
character of the area. e)
Parking space and traffic issues. · Parking
provision recently reduced in Water Street. · The
application would exacerbate existing issues eg
Cambridge North Station commuter traffic. f)
The application would set a
precedent for inappropriate development in the area. g)
Waste water evacuation. h)
Increased risk of flooding by
covering the site with buildings and a sealed driveway. Case Officer’s
Comments: 5)
Summarised the process to date and
consultee responses. No objections had been received to date from statutory
consultees, subject to planning conditions being met. The Case Officer was
awaiting some information from the Drainage Officer. 6)
The Applicant had submitted
revised plans due to concerns over accuracy. 15 July 2017 was the consultation
deadline. 15 objections from residents had been received to date. Due to this,
the application would go to Planning Committee for consideration. 7)
The Case Officer would liaise with
the Applicant and Petitioners/Objectors prior to writing his report. Members’ Questions
and Comments: The Principal Planner and Case Officer answered as follows in response
to Members’ questions and comments: 8)
The application met car parking
standards in the Local Plan by providing 1 car parking space for a 2 bedroom
dwelling. 9)
There were no standard distances
between habitable rooms and new developments in the adopted Local Plan. Each
application would be judged on its merits. Chris Senior answered as follows in response to Members’ questions and
comments: 10)
Would be happy to liaise with the
Petitioners on options to mitigate overlooking through screening on the
boundary, such as trees or a trellis on the wall/fence. Neighbour support was
required for high screening. Anne-Claire
Vergnaud said she would prefer trees to trellises to
prevent a higher wall effect and sense of overbearing. She would also prefer
houses on the development to be orientated north/west rather than south/east to
prevent overlooking. Re-iterated that screening and building
orientation were important. 11)
70% of the plot being developed
was hard standing ie covered with concrete. 12)
There were national standards on
distances between habitable rooms and new developments for first floor windows,
but not ground floor ones. First floor windows were obscured in the development
due to this. Quentin
Gueranger said that the drive and garages were
unsealed. 13)
Details on why the scheme design
was appropriate for a back garden development as opposed to a front of street
development were set out in the design report. ·
Materials, scale and massing were
inspired by adjourning buildings. ·
The design was contemporary. ·
High quality materials were used. Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent 14)
Waste water disposal: · Historically
this fed into a septic tank. · A
mechanism for the new scheme was to be determined, but a septic tank may not be
suitable. Clarification would be sought. · A
flood risk assessment had been undertaken for the site. Petitioners had stated
the site contained a lot of clay, so the impact of this could be checked as
drift maps had been used for assessment information. It would be verified if these
were up to date. Sustainable Drainage Officer comments
were still pending. 15)
The Agent could ask the Applicant
if the scheme scale and massing could be reduced, but could not predict the
response. 16)
Invited petitioners to liaise
regarding screening and types of trees to use in landscaping, this may result
in the bike store being moved. 17)
A tracking assessment had been
included in the last application to assess parking provision. This could be
done again to ensure standards were met. Summing up by the
Petitioners 18)
This iteration was similar to
previous schemes. Neighbours’ objections had generally not been taken to
account. 19)
The main issue was lack of privacy, this could be addressed through building re-orientation
and screening. 20)
This was an overdevelopment of
site, 3 houses were too many on a small plot Final Comments of
the Chair 21)
The Chair observed the following: · Notes
of the Development Control Forum would be made available to relevant parties. · Application
to be considered at a future Planning Committee, probably August. |