A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - decisions

15/2044/FUL

24/05/2016 - 15/2044/FUL 29-31 Harding Way

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for planning permission of two semi-detached dwellings, and one detached dwelling, following demolition of two semidetached bungalows and garages.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

 

  i.  Approval of this application would set an unacceptable precedent of two storey buildings amongst individually designed bungalows.  

  ii.  The proposed development would more than double the number of bedrooms on site.

  iii.  Would bring an increase in noise and traffic.

  iv.  The proposed development was well below the emerging plan guidelines.

  v.  Would describe the proposed design as ugly and harmful and detracted from the overall appearance of its surrounding.

  vi.  The unnamed side street would produce a sharp boundary creating a change in character to the enclave of where the bungalows were situated. 

 vii.  Could damage the bio diversity of the area.

viii.  National Planning Policy Framework stated that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment but this application did not meet these standards.

 

Mr Baggaley (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

 

i.  Accepted that the proposed design was an improvement on the original application which had previously been refused (as referenced in 8.8 of the Officer’s report).

ii.  Disagreed with the Office’s conclusion of the application as referenced in 8.5 of their report.

iii.  The Inspectorate’s comments concerning the appeal to the refused application regarding the design of the building would appear as an ‘incongruous element in the street scene’ applied to this application.

iv.  Did not comply with Local Plan Polices 3/4 and 3/12 as the design did not respond positively to the existing features of the local character and did not have a positive impact on its settings of the surrounding character. 

v.  Believed the proposed side access road was the main reason that this application should be refused.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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.