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’.