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: Emily Watts Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Introduction by Chair to the Forum Minutes: The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development
Control Forum. She stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. |
|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Hart and Nesthingha |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations were made. |
|
17/1372/FUL - 291 Hills Road Application No: 17/1372/FUL Site Address: 291 Hills Road, Cambridge Description: Residential
development containing 15 flats comprising 10 2bed units and 5 1bed units,
along with access, car parking and associated landscaping following the
demolition of the existing building. Applicant: C/O Agent Agent: Carter Jonas LLP Address:
One Station
Square Cambridge CB1 2GA Lead Petitioner: Resident
of 289 Hills Road Cambridge, CB2 8RP Case Officer: Charlotte Burton Text of Petition: The Hills Road Area
Residents Association, the Queen Edith’s Way Residents Association and many
local residents are concerned about the proposal to demolish a fine Edwardian
home and replace it with a block of 15 flats. We consider that the proposal is
at odds with other houses on Hills road and Queen Edith’s Way, and has a
significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality, due
to its scale massing and appearance. We are also concerned about (A)
overlooking and loss of privacy from windows, balconies and roof gardens onto neighbouring
properties. (B) The overbearing and domineering effect of the proposed
building. (C) The proximity to the very busy Hills Road/ Queen Edith’s Way/
Long Road junction and the impact on the convenience on other road users by
reason of traffic congestion. (D) The further provision of ‘investment style
luxury apartments’ when there is an unmet need for both genuine family homes and
affordable housing for workers at the nearby Biomedical Campus and local
schools. Do you thin changes could be made to
overcome your concerns? Yes If Yes please explain: Option 1: The house
could be refurbished providing a beautiful, well designed family home acting as
a landmark building on a prominent corner plot. Option 2: if a
decision is made to demolish the property, we would welcome two large family
homes rather than a single block of flats. Under both options
we would wish to see the landscaping plan amended to retain more of the
existing vegetation, or replace and enhance it, especially along the Hills Road
frontage and the borders with neighbouring houses. Minutes: Description: Residential development containing 15 flats
comprising 10 2bed units and 5 1bed units, along with access, car parking and
associated landscaping following the demolition of the existing building. Applicant: C/O Agent Agent: Carter Jonas LLP Lead Petitioner: Resident
of 289 Hills Road Cambridge, CB2 8RP Case Officer:
Charlotte Burton Text of Petition: The Hills Road Area
Residents Association, the Queen Edith’s Way Residents Association and many
local residents are concerned about the proposal to demolish a fine Edwardian
home and replace it with a block of 15 flats. We consider that the proposal is
at odds with other houses on Hills Road and Queen Edith’s Way, and has a
significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality, due
to its scale massing and appearance. We are also concerned about (A)
overlooking and loss of privacy from windows, balconies and roof gardens onto
neighbouring properties. (B) The overbearing and domineering effect of the
proposed building. (C) The proximity to the very busy Hills Road/ Queen Edith’s
Way/ Long Road junction and the impact on the convenience on other road users
by reason of traffic congestion. (D) The further provision of ‘investment style
luxury apartments’ when there is an unmet need for both genuine family homes
and affordable housing for workers at the nearby Biomedical Campus and local
schools. Case by Applicant Peter McKeown made the following points: 1) Gibson
Development submitted the application. The company had a long history of
successful building developments in Cambridge. 2) The
Applicant had sought pre-application advice from City Council Officers, and had
addressed some issues from the consultation responses. 3) The
development was supported by the Local Plan and was situated outside the
Conservation Area. Trees on the site had been considered and measures taken to
avoid root damage. 4) The new
development had similar proportions to the existing dwelling. There was more
massing from the Hills Road aspect but this was mitigated from the road by tree
coverage. 5) Stated that there
was no overshadowing. 6) Referred to
potential for overlooking, the windows were located in a similar position to
the existing dwelling and trees provided natural screens to any direct view of
surrounding properties. 7) Cycle storage and
access had been amended after receiving comments from the Cycling Officer. 8) The building had a
contemporary design like many new developments in the area so would not
dominate the townscape. 9) There was a demand
for the proposed accommodation. Case by
Petitioners Philip Kratz spoke on behalf of local
residents. He made the following points: 10) With reference to
the NPPF guidelines on Previously Developed Land (PDL) the proposals did not
follow the footprint of the exiting property and would dominate the area. 11) Highways
Officers, the Tree Officer and Cycle Officer had all found issues with
the development so far. 12) Access
would cause convenience issues. Calculations show that with a minimum of 15
people living on the site over 100 anticipated additional journeys per day
would be generated. It would also contribute to vehicle congestion. 13) The
development would overlook surrounding residents. This was highlighted by the
intention to install a screen around specific windows which sat at a 45 degree
angle. 14) Although
many of the surrounding trees had been protected during the initial stages of
the development, there would inevitably be calls from new residents to trim,
chop or fell the larger trees in the future. 15) The
neighbour at number 289 and the residential annex in its garden would suffer
from a loss of light and disturbance. 16) Overdevelopment
would have a detrimental environmental impact. The area was popular with bats,
birds and small animals. 17) The
proposal did not adhere to NPPF Government guidelines which advised that the
area should be developed in accordance with surrounding design. 18) The
development also failed to comply with section 3.10 of the current Local Plan
and section 5.2 of the emerging Local Plan. 19) There
should be provision for affordable housing on the site. Wendy Blythe spoke on behalf of local residents. She made the following
points: 20) 90 objections had
been submitted in response to the application. 21) The plans
contravened planning policy. 22) Similar
applications to this had been refused in the past. The overall design was not
in keeping with the character and surroundings of the area. 23) The local
community wanted to preserve and maintain the tree lined avenue on Hills Road. 24) Many of the
dwellings would be purchased by overseas investors and kept empty rather than
providing accommodation for local residents. 25) No provision had
been made for affordable/social housing. 26) Employees of Addenbrooke’s needed more affordable housing; they were
struggling to recruit as a result. Case Officer’s Comments: 27) The
application was received on 8 August 2017 and the neighbours were subsequently
notified. 28) 86
representations had been received; all of them were in objection to the
proposals. Reasons for the objections covered: ·
Principle design ·
Overdevelopment and out of scale
for the site ·
No provision for social housing ·
Removal of trees ·
Disturbance ·
Highways issues and access ·
Damage to biodiversity. 29) Policy
consultations had been undertaken with statutory consultees: ·
Highways Development Management
queried issues related to parking and set conditions. ·
Environmental Health, suggested
conditions. ·
Sustainability Officer, set
conditions ·
Urban Design Officer, stated that
the design was unacceptable ·
Tree Officer, did not fully
support the proposals ·
Anglian Water, reported concerns
about surface water ·
Landscape Team, reported that it
was too early for them to comment. ·
Environment Agency, set conditions
which they want responses to. Members’ Questions
and Comments: Members raised the following questions: 30) Displayed surprise
at the Agent’s comment that the application ‘was likely to be acceptable’.
Stated that this outcome should not be presumed because it was a committee
decision. 31) Highlighted that
the petitioners appeared to have an unrealistic view of the powers held by the
committee and wanted to manage these expectations. 32) Asked what was the
reasoning behind the applicant’s approach after the comments made by the Urban
Design Team? 33) Queried the available
external amenity space. There appeared to be parking and pathways but not much
green useable space. 34) Asked for
clarification from Philip Kratz about his reference
to trip generation and how he reached a figure of over 100 journeys per day? 35) Queried disabled
and cycle access to the basement? 36) Asserted that
underground cycle access was not always popular. Asked if Sheffield stands
could be built at surface level? The Applicant’s Agent answered as follows in response to Members’
questions and comment: 37) Affirmed that
there were a range of different developments and styles of build in the area so
there did not seem to be a reason to conform to a particular style for this
development. The roof was a contemporary and modern interpretation of a pitched
roof. After the comments made by the
Urban Design Team the materials had been given further consideration. 38) There were sustainable aspects to the
proposals, recess balconies, green flat roofs. 39) Highlighted that
each unit had a recess balcony or terrace which was at least 1.5m deep. The 21
hectares of land surrounding the property was designated communal space which
would be landscaped appropriately. 40) Outlined that the
current access from Hills Road would be closed off to cars but still useable by
pedestrians and cyclists. The vehicle access would be via Queen Edith’s Way
which was deemed acceptable. 14 parking spaces would be provided in the
basement with a further two on ground level. The ground level spaces would
encompass a visitor and a disabled space. 41) All cycle parking provision
was in the basement after advice from the Cycling Officer. This could be
accessed via steps or a ramp. 42) The internal lift
serviced all floors enabling disabled access throughout. 43) Plans to install
visitor cycle parking outside near the doorway could be reinstated. Philip Kratz confirmed that the standard
anticipated trip generation per resident per day was 6 to 7 trips (this is
through any method of movement or transport). Summing up by the
Applicant’s Agent 44) Re-iterated: ·
The proposals did adhere to
current planning policy. ·
The development provided housing
on a central arterial route. ·
The development would be
sustainable and sympathetic which gave due regard to the character of the area
and allowed for safe access. Summing up by the
Petitioners 45) Reiterated
local residents were deeply unhappy with the proposals and the overdevelopment
of the site. 46) Reiterated
concerns previously raised with regards to: ·
Garden space was inadequate ·
Long-term detrimental impact to
biodiversity ·
Petitioners were not adverse to
regeneration but would like it to be in keeping with its surroundings by
potentially developing the existing building. |