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 to the Forum by the Chair Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. He stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|
Application and Petition Details: 18/0806/FUL, 291 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8RP at Application No:
18/0806/FUL Site Address: 291 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8RP Description: 14 flats comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 6 x 1-bed
units, along with access, car parking and associated landscaping following
demolition of the existing buildings Applicant: N/a Agent: Carter
Jonas Lead
Petitioner: Resident of Hills
Road Case
Officer: Charlotte Burton Text of Petition: Local councillors,
members of the Hills Road and Area Residents Association and the Queen Edith's
Way Residents Association, and many residents across the city of Cambridge are
concerned about the proposal to demolish the fine Edwardian home at 29l Hills
Road and replace it with a block of 14 flats. The number of objections (203 at
the latest count) made by residents illustrates the strength of feeling on the
issue. Residents and
councillors have identified many respects in which this application is in
conflict with the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 (CLP 2006), including the
following: ·
There
is no case for demolishing the property (policy 5/4 of CLP 2006) ·
The
plans do not safeguard environmental character (policy 3/3 of CLP 2006) ·
The
application does not respond to the local context (policy 3/4 of CLP 2006) ·
Cramped
living accommodation (policy 3/7 of CLP 2006) ·
The
development would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring properties, provide inadequate amenity space, detract from the
prevailing character and appearance of the area, and adversely affect trees
(policy 3/10 of CLP 2006) ·
A
negative impact on the local setting (policy 3/12 of CLP 2006) ·
Damage
to trees (policy 4/4of CLP 2006) ·
Adverse
effects on health and the environment (policy 4/13 of CLP 2006) ·
No
provision for affordable housing (policy 5.5 of CLP 2005) ·
Unacceptable
transport impact (policy 8/2 of CLP 2006) Do you think there are changes that could be
made to overcome your concerns? Option 1: The property could remain a beautiful well
designed family home acting as a landmark building on a prominent corner plot. Option 2: The
property could be refurbished and converted into flats, possibly with an
extension and conversion of the loft space. Under both options,
we would wish to see the landscaping plan amended to retain more of the
existing vegetation. Minutes: Application No: 18/0806/FUL Site Address: 291 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8RP Description: 14
flats comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 6 x 1-bed units, along with access, car
parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing
buildings Applicant: N/a Agent: Carter Jonas Lead Petitioner: Resident
of Hills Road Case Officer: Charlotte Burton Text of Petition Local councillors, members of the Hills Road and Area
Residents Association and the Queen Edith's Way Residents Association, and many
residents across the city of Cambridge are concerned about the proposal to
demolish the fine Edwardian home at 291 Hills Road and replace it with a block
of 14 flats. The number of objections (203 at the latest count) made by
residents illustrates the strength of feeling on the issue. Residents and councillors have identified many respects in
which this application is in conflict with the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 (CLP
2006), including the following: • There is no
case for demolishing the property (policy 5/4 of CLP 2006) • The plans do
not safeguard environmental character (policy 3/3
of CLP 2006) • The
application does not respond to the local context (policy 3/4 of CLP 2006) • Cramped living
accommodation (policy 3/7 of CLP 2006) • The
development would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, provide inadequate
amenity space, detract from the
prevailing character and appearance
of the area, and adversely affect trees (policy 3/10 of CLP 2006) • A negative
impact on the local setting (policy 3/12 of CLP 2006) • Damage to
trees (policy 4/4of CLP 2006) • Adverse
effects on health and the environment (policy 4/13 of CLP 2006) • No provision
for affordable housing (policy 5.5 of CLP 2005) • Unacceptable
transport impact (policy 8/2 of CLP 2006) Do you think there are changes that could be made to
overcome your concerns? Option
1: The
property could remain a beautiful well designed family home
acting as a landmark building on a prominent corner
plot. Option 2: The
property could be refurbished and converted into flats, possibly with an
extension and conversion of the loft space. Under both options, we would wish to see the landscaping
plan amended to retain more of the existing vegetation. Case by Applicant A representative from Gibson Developments made the following
points: i. Not a greedy
property developer as had been characterised seeking to make a large profit,
but was a small business which had been developed over a 12 year period. ii. Proud of the quality and sustainability of
the properties that had been built in Cambridge. iii. Gibson Development did not leaflet drop or
approach home owners. Each development had been purchased with planning
permission in place or as in the case of 219 Hills Road (Raylands)
had been approached by the Homeowner. iv. Had a life long association with Hills Road,
living close to the site and therefore knew the site extremely well. v. The site had been neglected and overgrown;
the property was virtually invisible and had been for some time. vi. Disputed the petitioner’s reference that 291
Hill Road was a ‘landmark building’, as the building could not be seen. For
many decades the building had not been a landmark building. vii. Informed the previous owner the property
would not be preserved as Gibson Developers specialised in new build development
and should seek an alternative; but the previous occupant emphasised the short
comings of the property as he had lived there for so long (21 years). viii. Before purchasing the property the developer
established the building was not listed and was not on the Council’s list of
Buildings of Local Interests and had been rated as negative in the Council’s
Suburb and Approaches - Hills Road 2012 report; petitioners now disputed the
report stating that this was a mistake. ix. Did not believe the report was a mistake and
it was not unreasonable to rely on this information. x. First established that four trees on site
were protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and from a financial benefit
could have removed all other unwanted trees rather than risk further TPO’s
issued when engaging with the planning process. However, this was not followed
as it was not the right thing to do and a further seven TPO’s were issued which
had limited what could be done with the site due to the tree root zones. xi. Have been patient during the long drawn out
planning process (18 months since a positive pre application). xii. Met with campaign leaders in October 2017 who
asked for the opportunity to find an alternative buyer. No one had come
forward. xiii. Since the previous planning application
17/1372/FUL had been refused, the company had actively marketed the property
for the last three months, but had not received any offers apart from a
developer and a party who could not finance their offer. xiv. To preserve the property it would require an
owner who could afford to purchase the property in the first instance and spend
hundreds of thousands of pounds to refurbish it. xv. Would not have purchased the property if
could have foreseen the ‘firestorm’ that the application had set off. xvi. The application was of a high quality build
which would most likely attract buyers from the bio-medical campus who would
either cycle or walk to work; this was a better use of the site than one
wealthy family. xvii. The property did not lend itself to development
or subdivision or extension as stated by John Harris, Cambridge City Council’s
Design & Conservation Panel. The agent made
the following points: xviii. Reluctant Participants of the Development Control
Forum (DCF) and believed that the request for a DCF was not valid; in-principle
outright objection to the application had been presented with no suggestions
for a reasonable compromise solution. xix. Had been through a DCF with the original
application 17/1372/FUL. Following this first meeting, the applicant had made
significant changes. xx. It seemed the petitioners’ position had
hardened. xxi. The applicant had been open and transparent
throughout the entire process and had given the petitioners every opportunity
for dialog. xxii. Application 18/0806/FUL had been submitted as a
new application in response to Planning Application 17/1372/FUL (which had been
refused by the Planning Committee in May 2018), although the Case Officer had
recommendation approval. Reasons for refusal had been: 1. Failure
to provide affordable housing 2. Inconvenient
cycle parking 3. Cramped
accommodation 4. Failure
to provide arrangements for visitor car parking. xv. The proposals
constituted a resubmission of application 13/1372/FUL
which had addressed the four
refusal reasons: 1. The
scheme now sought consent for 14 units and was compliant with the requirements
of Policy 5/5 of the adopted CLP 2006 and Para 30 of the Affordable Housing SPD
2008 2. The
resident’s cycle store would be conveniently located at ground floor, easily
accessible to all units; accommodating 27 cycles including a cargo bike; the
layout was fully compliant with Cambridge Cycle Parking Guide 201 and eight
visitor cycle spaces were provided 3. The
revised scheme provided 14 units; eight 2xBed units and six 1xBed. All units were in line with nationally
described space standards. Units 2, 4 and 10 extend to 60m2 GIA excluding 4m2
amenity space. High quality residential environment would be provided and the
scheme was compliant with Policy 3/7 of the CLP 2006 4. The
scheme now provided four visitors / disabled car parking spaces. These spaces
were accessible and convenient for future visitors. xvi. The new application was supported by all
statutory consultees including; Urban Design,
Landscaping, Highways, Environmental Health, Drainage, Waste and Disability
Panel. xvii. The highways impact had been discussed at
length when considering application 13/1372/FUL and had not been an issue for
refusal. xviii. The trees which were to be removed had been
agreed in consultation with the City Council’s Tree Officer. xix. The new applicant had responded positively to
the Planning Committees four reasons for refusal. xx. The proposed development was a high quality
residential development that would deliver an additional thirteen residential
units within a highly sustainable and central location. xxi. The proposals were considered to be compliant
with all relevant national and local planning policies. Case by the
Petitioners Petitioner 1 spoke on behalf of residents and made the
following points: i. The
architectural style of the area was of detached and semi-detached villas, civic
buildings, dating from the late 19th and early 20th century. Buildings were set
back from the highway and screened by hedges and tall trees of stature; these
were also well set back within the green frontage matching the period
architecture. ii. Few buildings were listed on Hills Road
area including those buildings in Homerton College.
These buildings could also be demolished but believed this would cause a
national outcry. iii. Cambridge City Council’s Guidance Notes
establish ‘material planning considerations’ for neighbourhood listings: • Distinctive
architectural feature of individual buildings • Importance
of street scene. iv. Detailed architectural drawings exist for
many pre 1914 houses and civic buildings, including 291 Hills Road; this
section of Hills Road met with the City Council’s criteria for a neighbourhood
group listing. v. The proposed development was not in harmony
with the surrounding street scene on Hills Road, there would be a large loss of
green foliage and the application contradicted Local Plan 2006 policies 3/3 and
3/4. Petitioner 2 raised the following points: viii. The property had been a continuous family home
since it was built. John Harris, Cambridge City Council’s Design &
Conservation Panel stated “while presently enjoying no statutory status, it is
worth preserving and giving another 100 years as a much loved family home”. ix. The CLP 2006 3/10 was not referenced in the
Senior Planning Officer’s report which was directed towards developments on
existing plots with pre-existing neighbours; “Residential development within
the garden area or curtilage of existing properties will not be
permitted…”[under certain circumstances]. If the site was developed to provide
14 dwellings, by definition, the plot is subdivided, irrespective of whether
the original dwelling remains. x. The dwelling to the rear of 289 Hills Road
had been described by the Senior Planning Officer’s report as a “two storey
annex….””While the status annex in planning terms is unconfirmed”. This was not
an “annex” but a separate (semi-detached building) dwelling with its own
Council tax bill whose amenities also required consideration. xi. The development went against CLP 2006 3/10
as there would be a loss of privacy, loss of light and overbearing sense of
enclosure to 289 Hills Road which sits on the boundary of the site. It was
difficult to assess these losses as the Landscape Master Plan had not been
updated since August 2017, yet the proposals had been updated twice. xii. Significant plans have been marked as
‘indicative’, such as tree planting. xiii. Difficult to comprehend the true impact the
proposed build would have on neighbouring properties. The plans were
misleading, drawn to minimise the impact and the scale of development. Yet
there would be an over bearing sense of development as the building was three stories
high with a glazed atrium, consisting of fourteen flats. Petitioner 3
raised the following points: xiv. The glazed link proposed on the plan would be
fully visible from the two properties at 289 Hills Road; the three mature trees
to be retained on the boundary were deciduous and would not filter light for
most of the year. Much of the vegetation between 289 and 291 would be removed. xv. Believed that the glazed link would not have
any curtains or blinds creating light pollution; the lights would also have an
impact on wildlife as they switched on and off when people left or entered the
building. xvi. The glazed link offered no benefit to the
residents of 291 Hills Road, as this was obscured glass but would have a
significant impact on the amenity of neighbours. xvii. There was no scale on the basement construction
plan but estimated that the sheet piling should be four metres away from the
fencing which was positioned at the edge of the tree root protection zone. xviii. Assumed that the fencing had been marked
incorrectly as this should be on or outside the tree root protection zone but
was shown on the plans both to the north and south in the root protection zone.
The sheet piling was also shown to be touching the tree root protection zone
and not the estimated four meters away. xix. Alleged that the basement excavation and
construction would damage the protected trees and roots, lower the water table
and cause cracking of the ground. This could damage the two properties on 289
Hills Road which had been underpinned. viii. The site sat on the corner of busy roundabout,
described as ‘an over saturated junction” by the County Council who predicated
a 19% increase in traffic volume by 2019 compared to the figures in 2014. ix. Traffic jams formed outside the entry and
exit point to the site; cars from the site would be unable to exit safely
increasing the potential for accidents as there was no pedestrian crossing on
this area of Hills Road. x. Double yellow lines ran alongside the
development so delivery vehicles would have to park on site. xi. The drive on the site was five meters wide
which would not allow a wide enough turning circle for a standard 6 meter long
delivery vehicle; vehicles would have to reverse out into Queen Edith’s Way,
compromising highway safety. xii. If the visitor’s space was occupied there
would be no room for a three point turn. xiii. The only personal amenity space on site for
residents would be their balconies. The developer commissioned a noise
assessment which concluded ‘noise levels on the balconies are expected to
exceed recommended levels’. xiv. Predicated noise levels on Hills Road
balconies would reach 69 decibels (dB), well above the recommended limit of
50-55 dB based on the 2014 traffic levels. xv. Described the proposed property as a sealed
box due to the windows not opening would have a ventilation system. xvi. Alternative proposals to keep the existing
building were presented and examples shown. There was no case for demolishing
the property (CLP 2006 5/4) Case Officer’s
Comments i. The
Application had been received on 18 May 2018 and would be considered by the
Planning Committee on 29 August. ii. Had received forty objections from third
parties, including Hills Road and Queen Edith Way Resident Associations, and
Ward Councillors. iii. The Officer’s recommendation to the Planning
Committee was still being considered. iv. The Planning Committee’s decision on the
previous application 13/1372/FUL had been refused on material considerations. v. When considering the revised application
the Case Officer would determine if those reasons for refusal had been
sufficiently addressed to overturn the previous reasons for refusal. vi. Careful deliberation would be given to
conclude if the new application would bring any new areas of concern; the
application would also be looked at carefully to ensure consistency. vii. The issues regarding the principle of
development and design, impact to the character of the area and transport were
not raised as reasons for refusal on the previous application. viii. The petitioners had made a case against the
demolition of the building; the existing building was not a protected building,
not listed and not within the conservation area. ix. Demolition could not be resisted in
principal and had not been a reason for refusal on the previous application. x. The proposed plans were similar to the
previous application and would retain the eleven trees under the TPO. The Tree
Officer had supported the previous application and raised no further concerns
on the proposed development. xi. The Tree Officer had been satisfied with the
details of the basement construction plans which could be secured with
conditions. xii. Impact to the character of the area; the
design was considerably similar to the previous application in terms of
external appearance, the building envelope and landscaping scheme. All of which
were supported by Urban Design and the Landscape Officer. It would be difficult
to come to a decision which was different to the previous application on this
matter. xiii. The applicant had provided details of the
floor space for each unit which met or was close to the National Technical
Housing Standard (NTHS). xiv. The impact on neighbouring properties had not
been raised as a reason for refusal on the previous scheme. xv. The Council’s consistent approach was not to
provide outdoor amenity space for one bedroom units but the proposed
application did. xvi. Transport issues had been addressed in detail
on the previous application and the proposed application now had one less unit
on site. Therefore it would be difficult to reach a different recommendation on
this matter; the Highway Authority had assessed the impact and advised of no
concerns. xvii. The reduction of the number of units to a total
of fourteen meant the development now complied with Para 30 of the Affordable
Housing SPD, 5/5. Members’ Questions
and Comments Ward Councillor McGerty addressed the following points: i. Disagreed that
emotion and nostalgia should be taken out of the decision; residents would have
a different view. ii. Disputed the Agent’s comments that the DCF
was not valid. iii. Queried how a decision of no concerns had
been reached on the transport issues when the junction had been described as
‘over saturated’, additional residents on the development would add an impact
to it. iv. It was a probability that many of the
residents would turn right when exiting the site, against the traffic flow
coming away from the junction. These vehicles joining the queuing traffic would
have a further negative impact on the traffic flow. v. Disappointed that the number of units had
been reduced to avoid building affordable housing on site. Would have liked the
opportunity to work with the developers to address the issue rather than avoid
it. vi. Would like to put forward the following
questions: 1. Is
the applicant able to provide a Tree Protection Method statement as part of the
planning application? 2. Is
the applicant able to provide a detailed plan of new planting and make this a
firm undertaking during the planning process? 3. Could
the grass verges on Queen Edith’s Way be protected with Heras
fences during construction? The Chair explained he
could not allow the Agent to respond to the above questions as unfortunately
the terms of the forum did not allow this. Ward Councillor Pippas made the following points: i. It was clear
that the previous owner had not maintained the landscape to the property and the
view to the property had been lost. ii. However the building was a landmark
building in Cambridge and should remain so and would be a great loss to the
City if it should disappear. iii. The purchase of the property had been a bad
business mistake for reasons underlined in the CLP 2006 3/4. iv. The existing building was a beautiful
building which stood in an area of stunning buildings and the proposed
application was not. To knock the building down would set a precedent and more
could follow leaving the area a concrete jungle. v. Tourists visited Cambridge to view the
historical architecture as part of their experience, not a series of modern
buildings that all looked the same. vi. Requested the building was left and used as
flats to retain the character and ambience of the City. Members of the
Planning Committee raised the following questions: i. Questioned if
there was any evidence that the application would be withdrawn and resubmitted
in light of the all objections and asked if a compromise between the applicant
and petitioners be reached, as was the purpose of the DCF. ii. Asked if this DCF was simply going through
the motions rehearsing the arguments for the Planning Committee?
The Chair outlined the purpose of the DCF, allowing the petitioners to raise their concerns and for officers to consider their concerns and report them to members. It also allowed members to seek clarification on various matters. iii. Asked if it was possible when the application came to the Planning Committee for consideration, that additional reasons for refusal would be valid, and would those reasons stand up to scrutiny from the Planning Inspectorate. The Case Officer advised the decision on the previous application had been based on material considerations that could be used for assessing future applications on the same site. The current application was of a very similar scheme to the application that had been refused. Strong consideration would be given to the planning committee’s decision on the previous application. Where the scheme was similar it would be difficult to raise new concerns, however where there were differences new reasons for refusals could be formed. iv. Asked for confirmation if the application was a resubmission of a previous scheme or a new application. The
Case Officer advised scheme had been revised but this was a new application. v. Enquired if the petitioner and applicant appreciated the position of the Planning Committee’s starting point looking at the current application which was the end of the previous application and the reason for refusals. The
Applicant advised it was completely understood as the new application was
effectively a resubmission which had addressed the four reasons identified for
refusal. Believed the petitioners did not understand, as the same issues were
continuously raised. The
Petitioners explained that they did appreciate the point that had been made but
they were now raising issues that had not been raised before as their
understanding of planning law had increased. The whole process had been a
learning experience. vi. The Agent had stated that the development met with the NTHS, yet the Case Officer had said some units came close to the NTHS, which was correct? The
Case Officer responded that with regard to internal space, all units, apart
from units 2, 4 & 10, met with the NTHS.
The three units were 60 m² instead of 61m², a shortfall of 1m², but
these units had an additional external balcony space. The NTHS guidelines had
not been adopted by the City Council, and had no adopted space standards. x. Would like to know more about the windows and doors proposed on the scheme? The Case Officer advised that the Environmental Health Team had advised on the previous application that the impact of traffic noise could be mitigated by mechanical ventilation system. This would allow residents to control internal thermal comfort and cooling without compromising internal noise levels. Details would be secured by conditions. vii. Enquired why the petitioner had described the
plans as misleading.
Petitioner
2 explained the plans were described as misleading as on a number of occasions
the scale of drawings are different, in some cases the plans make the
development appear smaller in relation to the neighbouring properties. In other
case the scales are not given. Would also question how determination could be
made based on indicative plans. viii. Suggested that delivery vehicles could reverse
into the site. The
Case Officer noted the comment. ix. Requested the developer explain why the number of units had been reduced from fifteen flats to fourteen flats. The Agent stated that the SPD 2010 guidance on schemes which involve the demolition of a single dwelling state that the affordable housing should be calculated on a gross basis and not a net basis. The view taken on the previous application for fifteen units would have resulted in a gross increase of fifteen units and did not comply with the affordable housing policy. The proposed development was now in line with the CLP. The
Developer advised the company had previously been involved with builds that
offered affordable housing and recognised the importance of affordable housing.
On this application the number of trees protected by TPO’s restricted what
could be achieved on site, it was not possible to offer affordable housing in a
viable way. vii. Requested further information on visitor parking spaces proposed on the new application. The
Agent advised a total of four spaces had been allocated for disabled users and
visitor / disabled spaces compared to the one space on the previous
application. Summing up by the Applicant’s Agent i. The proposed
development was for the demolition of a single dwelling and the development
containing 14 flats comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 6 x 1-bed units, along with
access, car parking and associated landscaping ii. The application represented a resubmission
of planning application 17/1372/FUL that was refused planning permission
despite a positive recommendation by the Case Officer. iii. The principle of development was acceptable. iv. The existing dwelling on site was not
protected. v. The application had responded positively to
the four reasons for refusal to the previous application. vi. The proposed development would bring a high
quality sustainable development to the site which would meet demand required in
Cambridge. Summing up by the Petitioners i. Whether a new
application could be refused on the grounds that were different to the original
reasons for refusal on the previous application was a legal issue. It needed to
be clearly determined that this was a new application. ii. The fact that a DCF had been held for this
application would indicate that this was a new application. iii. If valid reasons for refusal were not
highlighted on the previous application but have since been uncovered and
contradict planning policy the recommendation for refusal should be upheld by
the Planning Inspectorate. iv. The Planning Inspectorate should focus on
all aspects and would adjudicate on whether the application goes against
planning policy. v. Object to the application, the proposal is
misconceived and requires radical changes to address the application in the
context of the current and emerging CLP and the National Planning Policy
Framework and all other material considerations. Precise and updated
information was not available but would have demonstrated this point. vi. Documents submitted have been incomplete,
inaccurate or missing. Examples are the Landscape Master Plan 2017, the noise
assessment documents is based on 2014 traffic figures. There is no precise tree
replacement plan and plans are termed ‘indicative’. The basement construction
plans did not seem to be correct. There are few usable scales and the size of
building is misrepresented. vii. The development would cause significant harm
to the neighbouring amenities, including the general loss of privacy. viii. The proposed development would cause
permanent harm to the character of the area. ix. All locals concerns had been ignored. x. The new NPPF from next January 2019 would
put more emphasis on the character of the local neighbourhood, Para 127, taking
into consideration sympathetic to local history, landscape and development, establish
a strong sense of place using the arrangements of existing buildings, building
types and materials. xi. This was about Cambridge for the next
generation and would be asking Councillors to consider this part of Hills Road
as a conservation area. Final Comments of the
Chair i. 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. |