Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application No:
15/2355/FUL
Site Address: Land To The
Rear Of 27-37 Romsey Terrace Cambridge Cambridgeshire
CB1 3NH
Description: Proposed development of four dwellings - two semi-detached three-bedroom dwellings and two semi-detached two bedroom dwellings and associated amenity space and facilitating development.
Applicant: TBC
Agent: Kimberley Brown on behalf of Bidwell’s
Address: Bidwell
House Trumpington Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 9LD
Lead Petitioner: Resident of 32 Romsey Terrace Cambridge
Case
Officer: Sav Patel
Text of Petition: See Below
This Scheme goes
against the wishes of the local community and is therefore disempowering. The
applicant has failed to engage with in any meaningful discussion with us.
We object to the above application to develop this back
garden site. It is an extreme example of “garden grabbing” and the proposal is
completely out of keeping with the surrounding buildings.
The proposal contravenes the following policies in the 2006
Cambridge Local Plan:
1.
Policy 3/4 as it does not use “the
characteristics of the locality to help inform the siting, massing, design and materials of
the proposed development.”
Any development on these back gardens would represent an over-development of
the site and would be out of character with surrounding properties.
2.
Policy 3/7 as it will
not create “good
interrelations and integrations between buildings, routes and spaces” and it will not create “attractive built frontages to positively enhance the townscape where
development adjoins public spaces and streets”. It will not locate “entrances and windows of habitable rooms
next to the street” and it will not ensure the “the provision of clearly distinct public and private spaces and the
design of such spaces so that they are usable, safe and enjoyable to use”.
3. Policy 3/10
(Sub-division of Existing Plots) as it will “have a significant adverse impact on the
amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of
privacy, loss of light, an overbearing sense of enclosure and the generation of
unreasonable levels of traffic or noise nuisance” and will also “provide
inadequate amenity space, or vehicular access arrangements and parking spaces
for the proposed and existing properties” and it will also “detract from the prevailing character and
appearance of the area” and “adversely
affect …gardens of local interest within or close to the site”. It will also “adversely
affect trees”. Several mature and
semi-mature trees will be destroyed as a result of the proposed development.
4. Policy 3/11 as it does not retain and protect “existing features which positively contribute
to the landscape, character and amenity of the site…”
5. Policy 3/12 because the new buildings will not “have a positive impact on their setting in
terms of location on the site, height, scale and form, materials, detailing,
wider townscape and landscape impacts and available views” and the proposal does not “successfully integrate refuse and recycling
facilities, cycle parking, and plant and other services into the design.”
6. Policy 4/11 as the loss of several trees
directly adjacent to the Conservation Area and the construction of a new block
will “affect the setting of or impact on
views into and out of Conservation Areas” and it does not “retain buildings, spaces, gardens, trees,
hedges, boundaries and other site features which contribute positively to the
character or appearance of the area”.
7.
Para
53 in the National Planning Policy
Framework requires councils to ‘consider the case for setting out policies to
resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where
development would cause harm to the local area.’
The
City Council has responded to Para 53 by including draft policy 52 in the
emerging Local Plan, which states that, “Proposals for development on sites that form
part of a garden or group of gardens or that subdivide an existing residential
plot will only be permitted where:
a) the form, height
and layout of the proposed development is appropriate to the surrounding
pattern of development and the character of the area.
b) sufficient garden
space and space around existing dwellings is retained, especially where these
spaces and any trees are worthy of retention due to their contribution to the
character of the area and their importance for biodiversity
c) the
amenity and privacy of neighbouring, existing and new
properties is protected
d) provision
is made for adequate amenity space, vehicular access arrangements and parking
spaces for the proposed and existing properties.”
The proposal breaches each element of this draft
policy. It is not appropriate to the surrounding pattern of development, it
does not retain sufficient garden space, it destroys mature trees, it impinges
upon the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties
and it removes a number of vehicle parking spaces.
The application as it stands represents a major
overdevelopment of the site and is not acceptable to us for the reasons given
above. However, if these issues of height, scale, design, enclosure, amenity
and parking were addressed we would not be opposed to plans for a greatly
reduced development which was in keeping with the built forms and character of
this area. We agree with the view expressed by the planning officer in his
feedback on the outline proposal that,
‘it may be possible to integrate a single storey building, which
accommodates 1 or 2 units on the site. However this would have to be carefully
arranged to mitigate overlooking from the existing dwelling (and vice-versa) or
would need to have a strong functional relationship with the use of these
existing houses (no 27 – 37) as student accommodation’.