Issue - decisions

Councillor Dryden rejoined the Committee and took the Chair.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing building and replacement with one 3 and one 2 storey building consisting of 26 post graduate student rooms plus support facilities for Darwin College.

 

The Planning Officer updated his report:

       i.          Referred to conditions and informatives listed on amendment sheet.

     ii.          In paragraph 8.36 of the Outlook section, the penultimate sentence should be replaced with:

 

“I do not consider the proposed development would result in a form of development that is uncharacteristic of this area.”

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from 3 local residents.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Barton Road had a rural identity and was the gateway to the area.

     ii.          The application proposed a higher on-site density to other areas of Newnham.

   iii.          Reducing the height of the application and amending the proposed materials would better suit the area.

   iv.          Took issue with the Officer’s report stating the (existing) building to be demolished was “of poor design”, it was simply ‘not good’.

    v.          Newnham had no bus service, so the application would increase car numbers in an all ready congested area. On-site car parking provision was inadequate.

   vi.          Concerns over loss of light and outlook. Expressed safety concerns as the application was located on a school travel route.

 vii.          The application provided insufficient amenity space.

 

The Applicant’s representative addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The large number of representations reflected resident’s concerns.

     ii.          This was an important site in the area, located on an arterial city route.

   iii.          The character of the area was rural on the outskirts and more sub-urban nearer the city.

   iv.          The application was located near to the Newnham Conservation Area.

    v.          The building proposed for demolition did not fit into the character of the area. This showed the need to have an appropriate design for any replacement.

   vi.          There had been design discussions between the Applicant, residents and officers.

 vii.          Proposed over-development of the site had affected the design quality.

viii.          Block A was too high at 3 storeys, 2 would have been more appropriate and addressed resident’s overlooking concerns.

   ix.          Block B’s design and massing was out of character with the area.

    x.          There was a lack of car parking and amenity space on-site.

   xi.          The University were only responsible for controlling undergraduate car parking. Mature students were the expected target audience for this application, they would be the responsibility of the college.

 

The City Development Manager proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to remove the date reference:

 

APPROVE subject to completion of the s106 Agreement by 30^th May 2016 and the following conditions

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

Councillor Hart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative to raise the issue of amenity space access.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

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 as amended above.