Agenda item

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of new replacement dwelling.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·       Mr Khalil

·       Dr Bullock

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Residents have applied for the road to be a Conservation Area.

     ii.          Raised the following concerns:

·       The application sought to demolish and replace, rather than modernise the existing house. The existing house should be retained.

·       The design was out of character with the area. It was not a suitable substitute for the existing buildings’ arts and crafts style.

·       Height, scale, mass, construction and materials of the proposed building.

·       The building would dominate and overshadow neighbours.

   iii.          Took issue with details in the Officer’s report relating to Local Plan policies 3/1, 3/4, 3/6 and 3/12.

   iv.          Referred to representations in the Officer’s report, including those from “expert” interested parties, and suggested these had not been given sufficient consideration.

    v.          Asked for the proposal to be dismissed, or postponed pending the determination of the Barrow Road Conservation Area application, or receipt of independently commissioned expert architectural evidence.

 

Mr Smith (Applicant) and Mr Riley (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Ashwood (Trumpington Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          The existing building arts and crafts style should be protected.

     ii.          Trumpington had become a concrete jungle.

   iii.          Nice-looking houses attracted people to Cambridge, which was good for the economy.

   iv.          Supported the Barrow Road Conservation Area application.

    v.          Asked for the proposal to be dismissed, or postponed pending the determination of the Barrow Road Conservation Area application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Summary of Reason for Approval

 

In voting to endorse the officer recommendation for approval of the application, South Area Committee (SAC) were mindful of the significant number of objections/concerns from local residents, Cambridge Past, Present and Future, the Twentieth Century Society, English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation and Design Team. In particular, it was noted that the existing Arts and Crafts house was an attractive example of a house from its period, that it complimented the character and appearance of an attractive road and that local residents had aspirations for Barrow Road to become a Conservation Area. Members of SAC were mindful that there was no evidence put forward by the applicants to demonstrate that, from sustainable and heritage perspectives, the house could not be retained and extended; acknowledging the recent approval of extensions to the property (13/0270/FUL).

 

It was acknowledged by SAC that the proposed house did not exhibit a number of features which would mean that it was a completely faithful replication of an Arts and Crafts house from this period; in particular the depth of the rear projection into the garden, the flat roofed element, the fenestration pattern and proposed symmetrical as opposed to existing asymmetrical design. However, SAC concluded that to a large extent the objections were seeking to require a refusal of planning permission on the basis of residents’ aspirations for a Conservation Area and that the test for demolition in the first place should be higher and that demolition should not be allowed pending the assessment and likely endorsement of Conservation Area status.

 

SAC were mindful that the existing building was neither Listed nor Local Listed and was unlikely to merit either status in the future. Importantly, SAC noted that there was no formally designated Conservation Area encompassing Barrow Road. On this basis, there were no reasonable grounds on which to resist the principle of demolition of the house, particularly as demolition of it would not require planning permission in its own right and was permitted development. 

 

SAC took into account the fact that the proposed house was of a lesser width than the existing house at first floor to the road, that the ridge height was similar to the dwellings either side, that the front building line was in keeping with its neighbours and that the frontage landscaping would be respectful to the spacious and landscaped quality of Barrow Road. The increased depth to the rear was not determined to be necessarily out of keeping with other large extensions to the rear of properties along Barrow Road or that it would prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of enclosure, privacy or loss of light. Neither was it considered that, when viewed from oblique angles, the deeper footprint would be harmful to the street scene. The design of the proposed house was acceptable in its own right and was respectful and in keeping with its context. 

 

Members of SAC had sufficient information upon which to determine the application and there was no reasonable basis upon which to defer a decision, especially as the applicants had the right to appeal against non-determination. Members of SAC were advised of the timescales for appeal and how this might/might not affect the Council’s and appellants’ case if the application was refused. In weighing up all of the merits for the application against the objections for its refusal, on balance Members of SAC considered the application to accord with adopted policy, particularly policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and that there was no sound planning reason for refusal.