Committee: East
Area Committee
Date: 9 July 2014
Application No: 14/0607/FUL
Site Address: 1 Great Eastern Street, Cambridge, CB1 3AB
Description: Conversion and extension of existing
frontage building from office to 1no. flat and 1 studio flat; and
erection of 4 studio flats to the rear (following
demolition of existing outbuildings), together
with associated infrastructure.
Applicant: Anglia Property Preservation
Agent: Justin Bainton,
Januarys Consultant Surveyors
Address: York House, 7 Dukes Court, 54-62
Newmarket Road,
Cambridge, CB5 8DZ
Lead Petitioner: Deborah Griffin
Address: 5 Great Eastern Street,
Cambridge, CB1 3AB
Case Officer: Amit Patel, Planning Officer
Text of Petition:
The proposed development is an
overdevelopment of a constrained
site. Six residential units are
planned on a site of one small Victorian
house. The proposed new building is more
than double the volume of the existing buildings. This will be visible from Mill Road and detract from the character of the conservation area. The size
of the development will also be detrimental to nos
3 & 5 in particular whose
properties will be dominated by
the large brick building creating
a feeling of enclosure and oppression.
Views of trees and skies from the windows and gardens
of these properties will be
depleted especially to the north
and north-east where the building will
extend twice as long as the existing
buildings. As the current buildings to the west and south of nos
3 & 5 are lower and narrower, it is
difficult to see how the applicants shadow drawings
conclude that shadow conditions
are broadly similar.
The new buildings will present large
expanses of brick where in contrast with the largely wooden structures of the
existing structures.
Do you think there
are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns?
If Yes, please explain:
The development
should be built within the volume of the existing buildings which will still allow
the site to have four dwellings.
Case by
Applicants:
1.
Acknowledge the concerns of the local residents and
aware of the issues raised by the petitioners which why the architect for the
agent is present to address any concerns and answer queries.
2.
The site frontage is currently occupied as offices
by the applicant, Anglia Property Preservation (APP), with buildings at the
rear used for storage.
3.
The application would remove commercial use from
this site and is for 4 studio flats at the rear of the site with a conversion
and extension of the current building to 1 flat and 1 studio flat.
4.
The application would restore the site to the
original residential use and is a reduction to the appeal scheme which was for
6 studio apartments, a total of eight residential units.
5.
APP has occupied the site for over 31 years as a
family business and in order to continue trading require larger premises.
6.
Income from the sale of the site in needed for the
new premises or could face decline due to stagnation.
7.
If the business remained on site the applicant
would be forced to grow the business from the existing location but would not
be financially viable to upgrade the site.
8.
The applicant wishes to develop in an efficient
manner whilst respecting the constraints of the site and is conscious to ensure
that the impact on neighbouring properties is comparable with the existing
building
9.
The Inspectorate’s report of the appeal scheme did
not state that the proposed development should be confined within the existing footprint
or volume of the existing site and reported the environment of the neighbouring
properties “would not change significantly worse”.
10.
The Inspectorate’s report stated that the outlook
of the courtyard should not been reduced.
11.
The footprint of the proposed development has been
moved 600m further back from the courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern Street. The
single storey element on the site overlooking the courtyard would also be
removed.
12.
The proposed development would be 1.9 meters away
form No 3 Great East Street
13.
Unit four (the studio flat) of the proposed
development has been stepped back from the boundary to allow a better
relationship to the tree of Heaven. The tree was highlighted as an area of
concern in the Inspectorate Reports. All units are now dual aspects so that the
tree of Heaven will not impact the natural light into the properties on site, a
previous area of concern.
14.
Shadowing reports undertaken from the measurements
of the proposed development
compared to the existing shadowing that
this will be no worse.
15.
Unit four (the studio flat) has been stepped back
of the boundary to allow a better
relationship to the tree of Heaven. All units are dual aspects so that the
tree of Heaven will not impact
the natural light into the properties on site.
16.
Adjacent to No 5 and the rear of the courtyard all
built up areas will be been removed.
17.
The development would be of high quality materials.
Case by
Petitioners:
18.
The owner of No 3 Great Eastern Street has
previously spoken before a Development Control Forum in 2011.
19.
This is the fourth application for this site; one
of which was dismissed on Appeal.
20.
Acknowledged that there have been minor
improvements in the present application but still represents over development
of a small site.
21.
The size of the proposed development is overbearing
particularly for the neighbouring properties of No 3 & No 5 Great Eastern
Street.
22.
The proposed development negative impact on the
small courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern Street.
23.
Support the principal of returning the existing
house at No 1 Great Eastern Street to its original residential use. But the
current plan for an increase in the existing footprint to incorporate 2 flats and
the proposed additional 4 studio apartments at the rear of the site would
double the volume of the site.
24.
Both No 3 and No 5 Great Eastern Street would suffer
from an increased feeling of enclosure.
25.
The development would exacerbate parking congestion
and would impact on the entire street.
26.
Proposed that the site of No 1 Great Eastern Street
could include off street parking for the proposed development (not including
the flats to the rear).
27.
Questioned how the applicant is going to guarantee
that the new residents do not have a car.
28.
The proposed development is in a conservation area
and the development will change the character of the street.
29.
Contravenes the aims and objectives of policies
3/4, 3/7, 3/10, 3/12, 3/14, 4/4, 4/11, 5/2, 8/2 of the Cambridge City Local
Plan 2006.
30.
Contravenes Planning Policy Statement 3: criteria
to be considered are whether [design is] well integrated and complements the
local area in terms of: scale, density, layout and access and integrated car
parking space.
31.
Although the replacement building is 0.6m shorter
than the existing building is stepped further back by 1.9m from the rear
courtyard to No 3 Great Eastern Street; with a reduction in the eves height of
150mm on the boundary of No 5 Great Eastern Street, compared to the Appeal scheme,
there are still the following issues:
·
Along the northern boundary, fronting No 5 Great
Eastern Street, the roof levels are 400mm above the mono-pitch ridge of the
existing building but the roof line rises a further 2 metres to the south. This
would have a significant adverse impact on the light in the courtyard of No 3
Great Eastern Street, as the area is so small.
·
The application does not show the impact of more than
doubling of the width of the building facing the gardens of No 3 and to the
lesser extent No 5 Great Eastern Street.
32.
The view
from the courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern Street would be replaced by a solid
building.
33.
The
flat roof of the bathroom of No 3 Great Eastern Street is shared with the
existing structure of No 1 Great Eastern Street which is proposed to be
demolished and questioned what impact this would have.
34.
The
building currently facing No 3 Great Eastern Street is a wooden outbuilding,
covered by vines for 6 to 8 months of the year. This would be replaced by a
building twice the width and 1 metre higher to the south in white render which
would have a significant adverse impact.
35.
The
shadow analysis does
not make sense as this is not what is experienced in the courtyard of No 3
Great Eastern Street.
Case Officers
Comments:
36.
The application was received on 23 April 2014.
37.
Site notice was posted on 14 May 2014 and placed in
the press on 16 May 2014.
38.
Have received representation in objection from
eight neighbouring properties, the main issues raised are as follows:
Principle
of the development
· Overdevelopment of
the site
· Lack of
residential amenities
· Out of character
with the surround area
· Out of scale with
the neighbouring properties
· Loss of trees
Residential
Amenities
· Loss of privacy
· Increase in noise.
· Sense of enclosure
Highways
issues
· Increase in
traffic
· Level car parking
provided is inadequate.
39.
Consultation responses as follows:
· Highways: Noted
that the proposal does not provide off street car parking for the additional
properties but will not have a significant impact on highway safety. Have
recommended conditions
· Environmental
Health: Recommended conditions
· Urban Design
Conservation Team: Recommended conditions
Questions and Comments to the Applicant
& Petitioner:
40.
Can the applicant of No 3 Great Eastern Street
enter their property from the back?
41.
What is the density of the proposed development?
42.
What is the density of the proposed development
compared to the current permitted
development?
43.
Has a bin storage area and cycle storage been in
corporated in the development and how
will relate to the space.
44.
What is the size of the courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern
Street?
45.
What does percentage of the courtyard would be
covered by shadowing from the proposed
development?
46.
Would the new residents have right of access to the
public car park?
47.
Expressed concern that the white rendering of the
new wall could reflect the sunlight
into the garden of No 5 Great Eastern
Street increasing the heat of the space.
48.
Questioned whether the proposed developments take
away the vision of sky if you stood in
the courtyard and looked to the left
and requested further information on this and suggested
a sight vision.
49.
Queried how would the emergency services gain
access into the four flats at
the back of the site and requested further details
be made available?
50.
Stated that it was difficult to gauge from picture
to show how much light would be lost into the courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern Street.
51.
Queried if the applicant would consider providing
additional land to No 3 Great Eastern
Street to extend the size of the courtyard
to reduce the feeling of enclosure.
52.
Questioned if a compromise could not be met in
extending the boundary of the
courtyard to No 3 Great Eastern Street.
Response
to the Questions and Comments:
53.
The owner of No 3 Great Eastern Street cannot
access the courtyard from the back.
54.
There has never been access to the courtyard of No
3 Great Eastern Street.
55.
The density has not been considered and there is no
obligation to do so under the National Planning Policy Framework or the Local
Plan. However the Planning Officer would calculate this and e-mail the
dimensions to the East Area Committee.
56.
Shared pedestrian access will be provided into a
courtyard area where there will be provision had been provided to store eight
cycles, the bins on site will service all of the development. The intention is to build up to the border of
the existing public car park.
57.
The public car park is owned by Cambridge City
Council and the new residents would not have right of access.
58.
The owner of No 3 Great Eastern Street states that
the courtyard is less than 3 x 3 metres
59.
The agent will provide an enhanced version of the
shadow study which will be placed on public access as cannot answer the
question regarding the loss of light to the courtyard of No 3 Great Eastern
Street.
60.
Agreed that there could be a condition to the
materials and / or colour of the rendering. There is also an opportunity to
plant trees behind the wall which would enhance the view from the courtyard.
61.
The access for emergency services would be gained
through the car park. The design meets the current fire safety regulations but
noted that further details had been requested.
62.
The extension of the courtyard had not been
discussed but the applicant has focused on the Planning Inspectorate’s comments
from the appeal scheme to negate the issues raised.
Summing up by the Applicant:
63.
Would take away the points of clarification to look
at.
64.
Would reflect on the points raised by the
petitioners and discuss the issues further in consultation with Officers and
the best way on how to take these issues forward.
Summing up by the Petitioners:
65.
The proposed
development is missed opportunity to improve and build on the existing
character of the area in a bid to maximise profit from a constrained site.
66.
Propose that the development is built on the foot
print of the existing site.
67.
Does not address the issue of the shared roof.
68.
There is sufficient land on the site of the
proposed site for car parking to be integrated into the scheme.
69.
Reducing the number of flats proposed and
integrating car parking within the application would reduce the following
associated risks:
·
Access for emergency vehicles
·
On-street parking congestion
·
Access for disabled persons
·
Access for pedestrians
·
Reduction in the loss of light from proximity of
proposed build to neighbouring property.
Final Comments of the Chair:
71.
The
Chair confirmed that the notes of the Development Control Forum would be made available
to relevant parties and would be reported to the East Area Committee when the
application is reported to them.
PDF 91 KB