planning committee date: 20 application agenda item officer · 2010-10-12 · planning committee...

PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 20th October 2010 Application Number

10/0418/FUL Agenda Item

Date Received 10th May 2010 Officer Mr Tony Collins

Target Date 9th August 2010 Ward Queen Ediths Site 109 Glebe Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1

7TE Proposal Construction of 10 apartments and two detached

dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling) Applicant Mr Paul Dalkner

The Mill Building Harston Mill Harston Cambridge CB22 7GG

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The site is a rectangular residential curtilage of 0.41 ha on the

north side of Glebe Road, at present occupied by a single two-storey detached house. The surrounding area is almost entirely residential; most of the buildings are detached houses or bungalows from a variety of periods mostly in the twentieth century, although 45m to the east is The Grange, a recent flatted development on three floors adjacent to 97a Glebe Road. The exception to residential use is the Pelican Pre-preparatory School, which occupies a group of buildings immediately opposite the application site.

1.2 The site is not within any conservation area, and neither the

building on the application site, nor any of its immediate neighbours is statutorily or locally listed. There are a large number of trees on the site, many of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders

1.3 The site falls outside the controlled parking zone.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes three buildings, a large block

containing ten flats towards the front of the site, and two detached houses in the rear part of the site. The description below is of the proposed buildings as amended by drawings submitted on 2nd September 2010 (see paragraph 2.5 below).

2.2 The apartment block would measure 24m x 22m. It would have

eaves at varying heights, but the main eaves line would be at 5.3m above ground. The building would have a complex roof profile, with a combination of hipped and gabled sections. The apparent main ridge of the roof would be at 8.9 above ground. In fact there would be a central flat area to the roof, 12m x 9m, not apparent from ground level. A gabled section on the west side of the building would rise to a north-south ridge at 10.3m above ground. Chimneys would also reach this height, while the lift overrun would be slightly higher than the level of the flat roof around it, at 9.2m. The building would stand in the centre of the front part of the plot, 10m from the common boundary with 105 Glebe Road, and 9m from that with 111 Glebe Road.

2.3 The building would be heavily articulated in places, especially in

the centre of the front elevation, where the central entrance doorway would be set 1.5m back from the from the elevation on the east side, and 4.5m back from that on the west. The ground and first floors would each contain 4 flats, with two further flats within the roof space served by roof lights and dormer windows. The front elevation would be set well back from the Glebe Road footway (18m), clear of the two very large trees in the centre of the plot. It would have seven windows at ground floor level, six windows at first floor level, and three dormers on the roof. The area in front of the building would be laid out for parking cars, providing 12 spaces, including two suitable for disabled users. A small building to the east of the block, close to the common boundary with No. 111, measuring 4m x 6m, would provide storage space for 20 cycles. On the opposite side of the site, against the common boundary with No. 105, an enclosure measuring 4m x 3.5m would provide space for refuse and recycling bins. The present paired ‘in-and-out’ vehicle access points at the front of the site would be replaced by a single access leading to the parking space and a driveway running past the east side of the apartment block to the houses behind.

To the north and west of the building would be communal amenity space for the ten flats.

2.4 At the rear of the site, arranged on a north-south axis, with their

front elevations facing an access drive on the east side of the site, would be two four-bedroom houses. Each would consist of a main L-shaped mass, 12m across the frontage, with the rear wing stretching back 18m. The eaves would be at 5m above ground, with the ridge of the pitched roof at 8.7m above ground. Each house would also have a one-and-a-half storey wing with a garage at ground floor level, and a bedroom served by dormer windows above it. This wing (eaves 3.3m above ground, ridge at 6.7m) would be attached to the south side of the southern house (House A) and, at an oblique angle, to the northern side of the northern house (House B). These two houses would have private gardens.

2.5 Following concerns raised at the Development Control Forum,

the applicants submitted amended drawings for the apartment block and the site layout. All those who were originally notified and all those who had commented on the original drawings were notified about the amendment. The key changes made by the amended drawings were as follows:

� Refuse store moved closer to the street and further from the

common boundary with 105 Glebe Road � Second vehicular entrance to frontage replaced by pedestrian

link � Turning head for House B moved further north � Removal of almost all the windows from east elevation.

Obscure glazing added to remaining windows in this elevation. � Projection on north elevation eliminated � Two dormer windows added to front (south) elevation � Bay on east side of south elevation reduced in height; balcony

added � Two dormers removed from west elevation � Eaves heights reduced by 300-600mm � Glass canopies added to ground floor of east and west

elevations � Central link above main entrance reduced in height and roof

slope of this section drawn back further The application is accompanied by the following supporting information:

1. Design and Access Statement (Includes statements on archaeology and renewable energy)

2. Tree Survey

3. Ecology Survey

4. Context images

5. Site Waste Management Plan

6. Site Investigation and Geo-environmental Assessment 3.0 SITE HISTORY

Reference Description Outcome 70/0600/FP Erection of music room at

ground floor level Approved with conditions

4.04.04.04.0 PUBLICITY 4.1 Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notice Displayed: Yes DC Forum (meeting of 1st September 2010): Yes 4.2 The minutes of the DC Forum are attached to this report as

Appendix C. 4.3 Errors in the scanning process created difficulties for members

of the public trying to view the documents associated with this application via Public Access on the Council’s website. As a result, a lengthy extension to the consultation period was arranged. This is also the reason for the scheduling of a DCF much longer after the registration of the application than is normally the case.

5.0 POLICY 5.1 Central Government Advice 5.2 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005): Paragraphs 7 and 8 state that national policies and regional and local development plans (regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks) provide the framework for planning for sustainable development and for

development to be managed effectively. This plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006): Sets out to

deliver housing which is: of high quality and is well designed; that provides a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price; supports a wide variety of households in all areas; sufficient in quantity taking into account need and demand and which improves choice; sustainable in terms of location and which offers a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, services and infrastructure; efficient and effective in the use of land, including the re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate. The statement promotes housing policies that are based on Strategic Housing Market Assessments that should inform the affordable housing % target, including the size and type of affordable housing required, and the likely profile of household types requiring market housing, including families with children, single persons and couples. The guidance states that LPA’s may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range. Paragraph 50 states that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a positive approach to renewable energy and sustainable development.

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing has been reissued with the following changes: the definition of previously developed land now excludes private residential gardens to prevent developers putting new houses on the brownfield sites and the specified minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare on new housing developments has been removed. The changes are to reduce overcrowding, retain residential green areas and put planning permission powers back into the hands of local authorities. (June 2010)

5.4 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005): Paragraph 1 states that planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.

5.5 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001): This

guidance seeks three main objectives: to promote more sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services, by public transport, walking and cycling, and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Paragraph 28 advises that new development should help to create places that connect with each other in a sustainable manner and provide the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

5.6 Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004):

Provides policy advice to promote and encourage the development of renewable energy sources. Local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources, their differing characteristics, location requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

5.7 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006): States that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk. It states that development in areas of flood risk should only be permitted when there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk and benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding.

5.8 Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions in Planning

Permissions: Advises that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

5.9 Circular 05/2005 - Planning Obligations: Advises that

planning obligations must be relevant to planning, necessary, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind and reasonable in all other respect.

5.10 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003

Planning Obligation Related Policies

P6/1 Development-related Provision P9/8 Infrastructure Provision P9/9 Cambridge Sub-Region Transport Strategy

5.11 Cambridge Local Plan 2006

3/1 Sustainable development 3/4 Responding to context 3/6 Ensuring coordinated development 3/7 Creating successful places 3/10Subdivision of existing plots 3/11 The design of external spaces 3/12 The design of new buildings 4/3 Safeguarding features of amenity or nature conservation

value 4/4 Trees 4/6 Protection of sites of local nature conservation importance 4/13 Pollution and amenity 5/1 Housing provision 5/4 Loss of housing 5/10 Dwelling mix 8/2 Transport impact 8/6 Cycle parking 8/10 Off-street car parking 8/16 Renewable energy in major new developments 8/18 Water, sewerage and drainage infrastructure Planning Obligation Related Policies

3/7 Creating successful places

3/8 Open space and recreation provision through new development

3/12 The Design of New Buildings

5/14 Provision of community facilities through new development 8/3 Mitigating measures

10/1 Infrastructure improvements

5.12 Supplementary Planning Documents

Cambridge City Council (May 2007) – Sustainable Design and Construction: Sets out essential and recommended design considerations of relevance to sustainable design and construction. Applicants for major developments are required to submit a sustainability checklist along with a corresponding sustainability statement that should set out information indicated in the checklist. Essential design considerations relate directly to specific policies in the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. Recommended considerations are ones that the council would like to see in major developments. Essential design considerations are urban design, transport, movement and accessibility, sustainable drainage (urban extensions), energy, recycling and waste facilities, biodiversity and pollution. Recommended design considerations are climate change adaptation, water, materials and construction waste and historic environment.

Cambridge City Council (March 2010) – Planning Obligation Strategy: provides a framework for securing the provision of new and/or improvements to existing infrastructure generated by the demands of new development. It also seeks to mitigate the adverse impacts of development and addresses the needs identified to accommodate the projected growth of Cambridge. The SPD addresses issues including transport, open space and recreation, education and life-long learning, community facilities, waste and other potential development-specific requirements. (For applications received on or after 12 January 2010) Cambridge City Council (January 2010) - Public Art: This SPD aims to guide the City Council in creating and providing public art in Cambridge by setting out clear objectives on public art, a clarification of policies, and the means of implementation. It covers public art delivered through the planning process, principally Section 106 Agreements (S106), the commissioning of public art using the S106 Public Art Initiative, and outlines public art policy guidance.

5.13 Material Considerations City Wide Guidance Biodiversity Checklist for Land Use Planners in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (March 2001) - This document aims to aid strategic and development control planners when considering biodiversity in both policy development and dealing with planning proposals. Cambridge Walking and Cycling Strategy (2002) – A walking and cycling strategy for Cambridge. Arboricultural Strategy (2004) - City-wide arboricultural strategy. Cambridge City Nature Conservation Strategy (2006) – Guidance on habitats should be conserved and enhanced, how this should be carried out and how this relates to Biodiversity Action Plans.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) – Study assessing the risk of flooding in Cambridge. Cambridge City Council (2006) - Open Space and Recreation Strategy: Gives guidance on the provision of open space and recreation facilities through development. Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth (2008) – Sets out the core principles of the level of quality to be expected in new developments in the Cambridge Sub-Region Cambridge City Council Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation (2010) Sets out how all residential developments should make provision for public open space, if not on site then by commuted payments. It incorporates elements from the Planning Obligations Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2010) and the Open Space and Recreation Strategy (2006). Cambridgeshire Design Guide For Streets and Public Realm (2007): The purpose of the Design Guide is to set out the key principles and aspirations that should underpin the

detailed discussions about the design of streets and public spaces that will be taking place on a site-by-site basis.

Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments (2010) – Gives guidance on the nature and layout of cycle parking, and other security measures, to be provided as a consequence of new residential development.

Area Guidelines

Cambridge City Council (2002)–Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan: The purpose of the Plan is to identify new transport infrastructure and service provision that is needed to facilitate large-scale development and to identify a fair and robust means of calculating how individual development sites in the area should contribute towards a fulfilment of that transport infrastructure.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Cambridgeshire County Council (Engineering) 6.1 No objection. SCATP contributions required. Cycle storage

stands not in accordance with City Council Standards. Information required regarding car park and garage dimensions, hard paving surface, and visibility splays. Conditions sought on hard surfacing and retention of the manoeuvring area free from obstructions. Informatives requested.

6.2 (Subsequent communication from the applicant has provided

the relevant information to the satisfaction of the highway authority. Cycle storage has been amended to Sheffield hoops).

Head of Environmental Services

6.3 No objection. Conditions sought regarding contaminated land,

construction noise, piling, construction hours, construction deliveries, dust suppression and waste storage.

Anglian Water 6.4 Foul flows from the development can be accommodated within

the present network. No comment on surface water drainage as connection to public system not proposed.

Environment Agency

6.5 Generally agree with the conclusions of the application’s

supporting reports that the site generally poses a low risk to controlled waters, but recommend removal of the identified hydrocarbon hotspot at HA6 (charcoal and ash) prior to the proposed capping of gardens and landscaped areas. Planning permission should only be granted subject to conditions to control the discovery and mitigation of further contamination, schemes for surface and foul water drainage, and piling.

Cambridgeshire County Council (Archaeology)

6.6 Condition sought to ensure archaeological investigation. Design and Conservation Panel (Meeting of) 6.7 Conclusion: The Panel were unanimous in thinking that the

case for the density of development had not been made, that the relationship between the flats and the two houses to the rear had not been sufficiently considered and that the architectural detailing of the design did not take sufficient account of the qualities of the surrounding buildings. The Panel hoped that any future submission would avoid the inappropriate ostentation and ‘bling’ like qualities of the ‘Gables’ and opt for a restrained approach to the elevations more in keeping with the adjacent buildings.

6.8 VERDICT – RED (unanimous) 6.9 The full minute of the consideration of this scheme by Panel is

attached to this report as Appendix A. Principal Arboricultural Officer 6.10 No objections to tree removals proposed apart from T35 (a

holly) which could be retained with a small redesign of the access road. Concerns raised regarding trees’ restriction of light to west side of the proposed flats, leading to requests for pruning. Concerns also raised regarding impact of cycle shed, car parking area, access road, visibility splays and underground services within Root Protection Area of trees.

Principal Landscape Architect 6.11 Acceptability depends on ensuring that retained trees are

suitably protected and that excessive demands for pruning will not result from the development. Questions raised regarding impact of car parking area on trees, and need for survey of RPAs of trees on adjoining sites. Hedge boundary to front of site would be preferable to railings.

Nature Conservation Projects Officer 6.12 Habitat survey and protected species survey are sufficient.

Buildings and trees provide low opportunities for bat roosts, and there was no evidence of current or recent use. If majority of mature trees are to be retained, no further survey work required. Exterior lighting should avoid illuminating the perimeter trees. Additional native trees and shrubs should be included in the landscaping.

6.13 The above responses are a summary of the comments that

have been received. Full details of the consultation responses can be inspected on the application file.

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Councillor Swanson has commented on this application. The

representation is attached to this report as Appendix B. 7.2 The owners/occupiers of the following addresses have made

representations:

24 Baldock Way 93 Glebe Road 94 Glebe Road 98 Glebe Road 101 Glebe Road (two responses) 103 Glebe Road 111 Glebe Road 111B Glebe Road 8 Hills Avenue 10 Hills Avenue 14 Hills Avenue 26 Hills Avenue 251 Hills Road

253 Hills Road 7.3 The representations can be summarised as follows:

Principle of development

� Should retain existing building � Backland development should only be bungalows � Backland development without demolition is preferable � Insufficient demand for flats � Garden not ‘previously developed land’ Context of site, design and external spaces

� Alter character of / out of character with area � Density too great � Inappropriate scale / overwhelm nearby houses � Too close to street � Rendered elevations inappropriate � Appearance not specified clearly enough Neighbour amenity

� Overshadowing � Loss of privacy from building � Loss of privacy from tree and shrub removal � Cycle shed will cause noise for neighbours Highways and traffic � Traffic generation � Highway safety � Congestion at ends of school day � Threat to pedestrian safety � Cyclists forced to cycle on pavement Trees, landscaping and biodiversity � Loss of trees � Involves development within RPA of trees � Parking area will lead to compaction and pollution, harming

trees � Underground services may harm trees � Cycle shed development harmful to trees

� Diminution of habitats � Threat to hedgehog habitats � Impact on other wildlife � Landscaping inappropriate Drainage � Surface and foul water drainage may not be sufficient to

cope with additional development Car and cycle parking � Insufficient car parking

7.4 The above representations are a summary of the comments that have been received. Full details of the representations can be inspected on the application file.

8.0 ASSESSMENT 8.1 From the consultation responses and representations received

and from my inspection of the site and the surroundings, I consider that the main issues are:

1. Principle of development 2. Context of site, design and external spaces 3. Public Art 4. Renewable energy and sustainability 5. Disabled access 6. Residential amenity 7. Refuse arrangements 8. Highway safety 9. Car and cycle parking 10. Trees 11. Biodiversity 12. Drainage 13. Third party representations 14. Planning Obligation Strategy

Principle of Development

Demolition of existing house 8.2 I acknowledge that the present house on the site makes a

positive contribution to the street scene. There may also be a sustainability argument in favour of its retention and re-use, although this may be undermined by the quality of its insulation and damp-proofing. I also agree with the argument made in neighbour responses that development of the rear of the site could take place without requiring demolition of the house. However, since the site does not lie in a conservation area, the demolition of the house, while classified as development, has the benefit of general permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), and does not therefore require specific planning permission. The Council therefore does not have the power to prevent the demolition of the house other than via an Article 4 Direction. There is no such Direction within the city. In my view, therefore, the demolition of the existing house does not constitute a reason for the refusal of this application.

Proposed development

8.3 Policy 5/1 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) states that

proposals for housing development on windfall sites will be permitted subject to the existing land use and compatibility with adjoining uses. The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential, and in my view the principle of residential development here is acceptable.

8.4 The 2010 revision to PPS3 means that the majority of this site

(that part outside the footprint of the existing buildings) is not ‘previously developed land’ and that there is therefore no presumption in favour of its development on the basis of the guidance in paragraphs 40-44 of PPS3 on the effective use of land, or the guidance in paragraph 36 of the same document on suitable locations for housing development.

8.5 The objective of PPS3 to create sustainable, mixed and

inclusive communities remains relevant, however, as does the advice in Paragraph 36 that housing should be developed in locations with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure, and the advice in Paragraph 37 that development

should be focussed in locations with good public transport accessibility. On these criteria, it is my view that the redevelopment of this site with additional residential units is appropriate in principle, and in accordance with the revised PPS3. The configuration and intensity of the development proposed must, however be assessed against the relevant policies in the Cambridge Local Plan (2006), which I do below.

8.6 In my opinion, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s letter of

June 15th 2010 regarding ‘garden grabbing’, and the consequent removal of the majority of this site from the category of ‘previously developed land’, the principle of residential redevelopment involving more than a single dwelling, and extending beyond the present building footprint is acceptable and in accordance with policies 5/1 and 5/4 and updated central government advice in Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ (2010).

Context of site, design and external spaces

8.7 The application plot is a wide one, 45m across, compared to

26m at 111 Glebe Road, and 10-12m at the four addresses to the east. The apartment building proposed does not fill the width of the site, but is nonetheless a substantial, bulky building. I acknowledge that a genuine effort to diminish the perceived mass of the building has been made by the applicants, particularly by inserting deep articulation in the centre of the front elevation. This is welcome, but it does not overcome the difficulties created by the overall size of the building. The amendments submitted by the applicant after the DCF go further in this direction, but only to a very small degree, and not sufficiently to address my concerns. In my view, the building remains both too deep and too wide to sit comfortably in the streetscape of this part of Glebe Road. In addition, although the second floor accommodation is ‘within the roof’, the apparent mass of that second floor space, stretching across the width of the building (even in its amended form), is considerable. I recognise the significance of the very large trees at the front of the site in both screening and softening the impact of the building (which is set back an appropriate distance from the footway), especially when viewed from directly opposite, but in my view this is not a sufficient mitigating factor.

8.8 The applicants’ Design and Access Statement alludes to a number of nearby buildings as features of the local character which indicate that a building of this size is appropriate, particularly the Pelican school building opposite, the recent development at The Grange, on the site of the former 97 Glebe Road, and the semi-detached houses at 94 and 96. I acknowledge that these three buildings are all significant elements of the local street scene, but I do not consider that any of them forms a sound basis for concluding that the form proposed on the application site is appropriate here. The Grange and the school building are both only 19m wide on the frontage (excluding the small single-storey bay on the west side of the school), whereas the application building extends at two-storey height for 24m across the frontage. These two existing buildings also ‘step back’ more than the proposed building, in both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions. In my view these differences are significant when set against the overall mass of the proposed building. The building at 94/96 Glebe Road is on a much smaller scale.

8.9 In my view, the acceptability of two-storey dwellings in the

backland are of this site depends on their visual impact, and their effect on neighbour amenity. I consider the latter question below. In my view, the size of this plot, and the very significant retained planting of sizeable trees on the boundaries renders the backland part of the site capable of accommodating two-storey dwellings without adverse impact on the character of the area.

8.10 By comparison with the scale and mass, the surface materials

proposed are of lower significance. I am not convinced that the render proposed on the front elevation makes a positive contribution towards integrating the building into the locality. I share the view of respondents that more information about materials would have assisted assessment of the proposal, but this is an issue which in my view could be addressed by conditions. With respect to landscape, I accept the Principal Landscape Officer’s advice that (apart from the welfare of trees), a satisfactory solution could be ensured by conditions.

8.11 In my view, the design is not fully enough informed by the

domestic scale and dispersed character of the built form of the area close to the site. The breadth, depth and height of the proposed apartment building combine to produce a

consolidated mass which does not relate well to that of neighbouring buildings and is not well-integrated with the immediate locality. The proposal is, in my view, in conflict with policies 3/4 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Public Art 8.12 No proposals for public art have been put forward. In my view

the absence of any prior work under this heading, taken with the location, the configuration and the scale of development proposed here make a financial contribution more appropriate than on-site public art.

8.13 Subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106

agreement, I consider that the proposal is compliant with the public art requirements of policies P6/1 and 9/8 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003), policies 3/7 and 10/1 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and the Public Art SPD 2010

Renewable energy and sustainability

8.14 The applicants’ Design and Access Statement indicates that

carbon savings of 4625 kg per annum would be necessary in order to meet local plan policy requirements. A breakdown of how this figure is calculated (as required by the SPD) is not provided, although the figure does not seem unrealistic. The statement also indicates that photovoltaic panels, or alternatively a combination of photovoltaics ands solar hot water have been considered as strategies to comply with this requirement, and states that 78m2 of panels would be required for the photovoltaic option and 75.6m2 for the combined option. Although the plans submitted show solar panels on flat and pitched roofs, I am not fully convinced that the area shown is of the correct magnitude. More importantly, no evidence is provided that the solar panels, particularly on the frontage block, would be completely free from shading by existing trees. Any such shading could significantly diminish the carbon-saving capacity of installed panels.

8.15 It may be that either or both of the technologies suggested is

sufficient to generate the energy required by local plan policy, but the evidence provided in the application is not sufficient to demonstrate this. In other circumstances this issue might be

addressed by condition, but here a condition is not appropriate, because I cannot be confident that there is sufficient unshaded roof space to accommodate the panels required. A different combination of technologies might provide a better means of reaching the required total, but the application does not indicate whether these have been considered, and if so, why they were dismissed.

8.16 In my opinion sufficient information has not been submitted to

demonstrate that 10% of the energy required by the development will be generated on-site by renewable means, and the proposal is therefore in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/16 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2007.

Disabled access

8.17 Level thresholds, level surfaces in the hard landscaping, lift

access to all units above ground level, and appropriate disabled car parking spaces are provided. In my opinion the proposal is compliant with East of England Plan (2008) policy ENV7, and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 3/12.

Residential Amenity Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers

8.18 The applicants have submitted shadow diagrams for a number of different points in the year: in April, June. August and October. These diagrams do not show early morning or evening shadows for the spring or autumn dates, but it is evident from the diagrams that, because of the space between the proposed buildings and the two neighbouring houses, and particularly because of the intensity and scale of the tree planting along both boundaries, the proposed development would not result in significant overshadowing of any of the neighbouring houses or their gardens.

8.19 The applicants have submitted revised floor plans and

elevations for the block of apartments, following concerns about the privacy of neighbouring occupiers raised before and during the Development Control Forum. The revisions eliminate a number of the windows originally proposed in the side elevations of the apartment building. Although these deletions

reduce the extent to which opportunities for overlooking arise, they do not in themselves eliminate such opportunities.

8.20 Overlooking would remain possible from the middle bedroom

window on the east side of the first floor, towards the garden area of No. 105. The covering letter which accompanied the revised drawings suggests that this window would be obscure-glazed. I do not regard this as a satisfactory solution, because it results in one of the two bedrooms in the flat concerned having no outlook. In my view, habitable rooms, including bedrooms, which are served only by obscure-glazed windows do not constitute a high-quality and stimulating living environment, and the applicants’ resort to this solution is in my view an indication of a shortcoming in the design. Overlooking would also be possible from three bedroom windows and two kitchen windows on the first floor and a second-floor dining room window on the second floor on the west side towards No. 111. I acknowledge that in some cases, the tree screen would completely block such views while the trees were in leaf, but the tree removal and landscape drawings indicate that this would not be the case with respect to the central first-floor bedroom window on the east side, and the two southernmost first-floor windows on the west side. I also acknowledge that the distance involved would be about 12m on the east side, and about 18m across the roof of the ground-floor extension on the west side. However, the garden areas involved are those closest to the houses concerned, which might be expected to be those most frequently used by the occupiers. They are also areas which currently enjoy a high level of privacy. In my view, the loss of privacy involved in the garden areas immediately adjacent to the rear elevations of 105 and 111 Glebe Road remains unacceptable.

8.21 The front windows of the two proposed detached houses would

face towards the rearmost part of the garden of 105 Glebe Road, and the rear windows of the houses towards the side elevation of 111b Glebe Road, and the rear gardens of 8b 10 and 12 Hills Avenue. In the case of the windows in the rear of the first floor of House A, the south bedroom windows would be 22m from the side of 111b Glebe Road, the landing windows 24m from that house, and the corner window in the northwest bedroom about 18m from 111b. In my view, these distances and the extent to which existing planting would be retained effectively eliminate any opportunities for significant

overlooking. In the case of the rear first-floor windows in House B, the north side windows of the west bedroom would be respectively 43m and 50m from Nos. 12 and 10 Hills Avenue, with a large protected tree in the line of sight. Bedroom windows on the west side of the house would be 19m or 24m from the common boundary with the rear garden of 8b Hills Avenue. In my view the distances and the retained planting would again effectively eliminate opportunities for significant overlooking. First-floor front windows of both houses would be 12-14m from the common boundary with the rearmost part of the garden of 105 Glebe Road. Trees would obscure parts, but not all of views in this direction. Although these windows are closer to the neighbouring garden than the rear windows, I do not believe that such proximity to the rearmost part of a neighbouring garden would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking.

8.22 I note concerns raised about visual domination and noise.

However, in my view, the distance of the proposed buildings from the common boundaries with neighbours is too great, and the effect of the intervening planting too significant for an overwhelming visual domination to be experienced on either side. I do not consider that the movements generated, or the general activity involved in this number of units would be sufficient to create a significant loss of amenity to neighbours through noise.

8.23 In my opinion the proposal adequately respects the residential

amenity of its neighbours with regard to overshadowing, visual domination, and noise, but fails to do so with regard to privacy, and I therefore consider it to be in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/7.

Amenity for future occupiers of the site

8.24 The proposed layout would provide reasonable private gardens

for the two houses, and a 30m x 10m communal amenity space to the rear of the apartment block, with some further space to the west side of the building. A considerable number of the existing mature trees would be retained in the proposed landscaping scheme. The space between the proposed buildings and existing buildings would be adequate, and the proposed flats and houses would not be overlooked or overshadowed by the existing buildings. Some flats, especially

those on the west side of the block, would have their sunlight and daylight restricted to a degree by the proximity of retained trees, which might lead to requests for pruning or lopping of those trees.

8.25 In my opinion the proposal provides a high-quality living

environment and an appropriate standard of residential amenity for future occupiers, and I consider that in this respect it is compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 3/12.

Refuse Arrangements

8.26 Private refuse storage space is provided for each of the two proposed houses, and a communal refuse storage space for the apartments. The distance of the proposed communal space is at the upper limit of what is appropriate (it is 25m from the front entrance to the apartment block), but in my view, this is acceptable. It can be reached by refuse crews without excessive reversing of the vehicle. I am not certain that the number and size of refuse containers proposed is adequate, but this issue could be resolved by condition.

8.27 It is proposed that the bins from the proposed houses be moved

by the occupiers to a collection point nearer to the street frontage. It appears that from this collection point, the distance which crews would need to move bins to the vehicle, and the distance which the vehicle would need to reverse would both be at the upper limit of what is acceptable. A condition would be necessary to ensure that such limits were not exceeded, and a reconfiguration of the collection point might be necessary in order to satisfy such a condition.

8.28 In my opinion, subject to condition, the proposal is compliant

with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12.

Highway Safety

8.29 The applicants have supplied information to satisfy all of the concerns which the highway authority originally raised about the dimensions of car parking and garage spaces, and reversing spaces, and the surfacing of the access drive, and the additional concern the authority raised about the design of cycle storage racks. The highway authority therefore has no

objections. I note the concerns raised in representations about the traffic generated by the proposal, the congestion created by exiting trips to drop off and pick up children from the school, and a potential threat to highway safety. However, I see no reason to disagree with the highway authority’s advice. In my view, the additional movements generated by the development are unlikely all to be concentrated into the period of school drop-off and pick-up, and such movements as are at that time are unlikely to make a significant impact compared to the total of school journeys.

8.30 In my opinion the proposal is compliant with Cambridge Local

Plan (2006) policy 8/2.

Car and Cycle Parking 8.31 The site lies outside the Controlled Parking Zone. The

maximum level of car parking permitted by the City Council Car Parking Standards would be 14 spaces. The application proposes 16 spaces, two for each house and 12 for the flats, including two disabled spaces, which is outside these limits. This is a relatively small over-provision, but in a context in which the extent of car parking conflicts with the welfare of protected trees, I consider it undesirable. This is a matter which could be addressed by condition, and does not form a reason for refusal of the application. I note the reservations expressed in neighbour representations about the level of car parking proposed, but I do not consider that the provision of additional car parking space on-site would have any significant impact on reducing pressure on on-street car parking in the area. It would, however, act as a disincentive to future occupiers’ using other means of transport.

8.32 In my opinion, a suitable condition could render the proposal

compliant with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 8/10. 8.33 The site lies outside the Controlled Parking Zone. The minimum

level of cycle parking required by the City Council Cycle Parking Standards would be 26 spaces plus some visitor cycle parking. The application proposes 20 spaces in the communal cycle store for the apartments, which is within these limits. The initial drawings, however, indicated ‘butterfly’-type racks which support only the front wheel and are not acceptable. The applicants have stated that Sheffield hoops would be

substituted, but a drawing has not yet been provided to support this). No cycle parking is shown for the two houses. The garage space shown (5.8m x 3m for each of two cars) is insufficient to allow cycles to be moved alongside a vehicle or stored, and no cycle storage is indicated in gardens.

8.34 The proposal is not compliant with Cambridge Local Plan

(2006) policy 8/6 on cycle storage. However, in my view, these shortcomings could be addressed by condition.

Trees

8.35 The Principal Arboricultural Officer’s initial advice was that although the proposed tree removals were acceptable, the proposal would threaten the welfare of protected trees through the proximity of the building, the position of the cycle store, and the layout of the car parking area and the access drive. On the basis of this advice, I consider the initial application to be in conflict with policy 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. The applicants have submitted additional information which seeks to address the concerns of the PLO on this issue, but at present I do not have updated advice. Any updated advice on arboricultural issues will be reported on the amendment sheet for Committee.

Biodiversity

8.36 I note that the Nature Conservation Project Officer has no concerns about the survey work submitted, and does not oppose the application. The recommendations he makes, with which I concur, could be addressed by condition

Drainage

8.37 I note that the City Council’s Environmental Health team, the Environment Agency and Anglian Water have considered the application, and none of these consultees raises any fundamental objection on drainage grounds. Were approval to be granted, however, a number of rigorous conditions on drainage issue would need to be attached in order to satisfy the requirements of the Environment Agency and the water authority.

Third Party Representations 8.38 I have addressed all the issues raised by third parties under the

headings and in the paragraphs indicated below.

Issue Under heading Paragraph numbers

Retention of building Principle of development

8.2

Only bungalows suitable for backland


8.9

Definition of ‘previously developed land’

Principle of development

8.4-8.6

Character of area Context of site, design and external spaces

8.7-8.11

Density Context of site, design and external spaces

8.7, 8.8, 8.11

Scale Context of site, design and external spaces

8.7, 8.8, 8.11

Proximity to street Context of site, design and external spaces

8.7

Rendered elevations Context of site, design and external spaces

8.10

Insufficient detail of materials


8.10

Overshadowing Residential amenity 8.18, 8.23 Privacy Residential amenity 8.19-8.21,

8.23 Noise Residential amenity 8.22-8.23 Traffic generation Highway safety 8.29-8.30 Highway safety Highway safety 8.29-8.30 Congestion at ends of school day

Highway safety 8.29-8.30

Pedestrian safety Highway safety 8.29-8.30 Loss of trees Trees 8.35 Harm to welfare of trees

Trees 8.35

Habitats and wildlife Biodiversity 8.36 Inappropriate landscaping


8.9

Inadequate drainage Drainage 8.37 Insufficient car parking Car and cycle parking 8.31-8.32

Planning Obligation Strategy 8.39 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) provides a framework

for expenditure of financial contributions collected through planning obligations. The applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a S106 planning obligation in accordance with the requirements of the Strategy. The proposed development triggers the requirement for the following community infrastructure:

Open Space

8.40 The Planning Obligation Strategy requires that all new

residential developments contribute to the provision or improvement of public open space, either through provision on site as part of the development or through a financial contribution for use across the city. The proposed development requires a contribution to be made towards open space, comprising outdoor sports facilities, indoor sports facilities, informal open space and provision for children and teenagers. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows.

8.41 The application proposes the erection of two four-bedroom

houses, and ten two-bedroom flats. One residential unit would be demolished, so the net total of additional residential units is eleven. A house or flat is assumed to accommodate one person for each bedroom. The totals required for the new buildings are calculated as follows:

Outdoor sports facilities Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit

Number of such units

Total £

studio 1 238 238 1 bed 1.5 238 357 2-bed 2 238 476 10 4760 3-bed 3 238 714 4-bed 4 238 952 1 952

Total 5712

Indoor sports facilities Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit


Total £

studio 1 269 269 1 bed 1.5 269 403.50 2-bed 2 269 538 10 5380 3-bed 3 269 807 4-bed 4 269 1076 1 1076

Total 6456

Informal open space Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit


Total £

studio 1 242 242 1 bed 1.5 242 363 2-bed 2 242 484 10 4840 3-bed 3 242 726 4-bed 4 242 968 1 968

Total 5808

Provision for children and teenagers Type of unit

Persons per unit

£ per person

£per unit


Total £

studio 1 0 0 1 bed 1.5 0 0 2-bed 2 316 632 10 6320 3-bed 3 316 948 4-bed 4 316 1264 1264

Total 7584 8.42 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010), I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/8 and 10/1.

Community Development 8.43 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) requires that all new

residential developments contribute to community development facilities, programmes and projects. This contribution is £1256 for each unit of one or two bedrooms and £1882 for each larger unit. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows:

Community facilities Type of unit £per unit Number of such

units Total £

1 bed 1256 2-bed 1256 10 12560 3-bed 1882 4-bed 1882 1 1882

Total 14442

8.44 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010), I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and P9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 5/14 and 10/1.

Waste

8.45 The Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) requires that all new

residential developments contribute to the provision of household waste and recycling receptacles on a per dwelling basis. As the type of waste and recycling containers provided by the City Council for houses are different from those for flats, this contribution is £75 for each house and £150 for each flat. The total contribution sought has been calculated as follows:

Waste and recycling containers Type of unit £per unit Number of such

units Total £

House 75 2 75 Flat 150 10 1500

Total 1650

8.46 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to


Education

8.47 Upon adoption of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2010) the

Council resolved that the Education section in the 2004 Planning Obligations Strategy continues to apply until it is replaced by a revised section that will form part of the Planning Obligations Strategy 2010. It forms an appendix to the Planning Obligations Strategy (2010) and is a formal part of that document. Commuted payments are required towards education facilities where four or more additional residential units are created and where it has been established that there is insufficient capacity to meet demands for educational facilities.

8.48 In this case, eleven additional residential units are created and

the County Council have confirmed that there is insufficient capacity to meet demand for pre-school education, secondary education, and lifelong learning. Contributions are therefore required on the following basis.

Pre-school education Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit


Total £

1 bed 1.5 0 2+-beds

2 810 11 8910

Total 8910

Secondary education Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit


Total £

1 bed 1.5 0 2+- 2 1520 11 16720

beds Total 16720

Life-long learning Type of unit

Persons per unit

£per unit


Total £

1 bed 1.5 160 2+-beds

2 160 11 1760

Total 1760 8.49 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to


Transport

8.50 Contributions towards catering for additional trips generated by

proposed development are sought where 50 or more (all mode) trips on a daily basis are likely to be generated. The site lies within the Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan where the contribution sought per trip is £369.

8.51 Using the County Council standard figures for the number of

trips likely to generated by residential units, contributions have been calculated as follows.

Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan Existing daily trips (all modes)

Predicted future daily trips (all modes)

Total net additional trips

Contribution per trip £

Total £

8.5 102 93.5 369 34501.50 8.52 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy

(2004), I am satisfied that the proposal accords with East of England Plan policies T1 and T4, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1, P9/8 and P9/9 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 8/3 and 10/1.

Public Art

8.53 The development is required to make provision for public art

and officers have recommended as set out in paragraphs 8.10 and 8.11 above that in this case a commuted public art payment to the S106 Public Art Initiative is appropriate. This commuted sum needs to be secured by the S106 planning obligation.

8.54 Subject to the completion of a S106 planning obligation to

secure the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy (2004), I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) policies P6/1 and 9/8 and Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/7 and 10/1 and the Public Art SPD 2010.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 I am very firmly of the view, as I have indicated above, that the

June 2010 revision of PPS3 to eliminate residential gardens from the definition of ‘previously developed land’ does not render this application site unsuitable for residential development.

9.2 There are robust policy reasons why, whilst not ‘previously

developed’, the site should be considered suitable for residential development. The revised PPS3 urges the development of housing in locations which offer a range of community facilities and have good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. The Cambridge Local Plan (2006) supports housing development on windfall sites, and in my view the residential nature of the surrounding area is compatible with such development on the application site. The relevant expert consultees have indicated that, subject to conditions, neither transport considerations, nor drainage issues, nor biodiversity are a barrier to residential development on this scale here.

9.3 However, I am of the view that this particular residential

proposal takes insufficient account of the local context, the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the welfare of protected

trees, and the need to generate renewable energy on-site, and that it should therefore not be granted permission.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. REFUSE for the following reason/s:

1. Notwithstanding the articulation proposed, the combination of breadth, depth and height of the proposed apartment block creates a building whose scale and mass are inappropriate to the site. The building fails to respond appropriately to the character of area close to the site, and would be poorly integrated with the locality. This design is inappropriate in the context, and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area. It is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/12 and to Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement

Delivering Sustainable Development’(2005).

2. Because of the opportunities it provides for overlooking the

private garden areas of the two neighbouring properties, 105 and 111 Glebe Road, (opportunities which could only be prevented by the imposition of inappropriate obscure glazing) the proposed apartment building would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to those occupiers, contrary to policy 3/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

3. The proposed apartment block, cycle store, car parking area

and access drive would threaten the health and welfare of protected trees, contrary to policy 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

4. The application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the

development would generate 10% of its total energy requirement by renewable means on-site, contrary to policy 8/16 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

5. The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, education facilities, transport mitigation measures, public art, waste storage or monitoring, in accordance with policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, or 5/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and policies P6/1 and P9/8 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, and Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation of Open Space Standards 2010.

6. In the event that an appeal is lodged against a decision to

refuse this application, DELEGATED AUTHORITY is given to Officers to complete a section 106 agreement on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Obligation Strategy.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 Under Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972, the following are “background papers” for each report on a planning application: 1. The planning application and plans; 2. Any explanatory or accompanying letter or document from the

applicant; 3. Comments of Council departments on the application; 4. Comments or representations by third parties on the application

as referred to in the report plus any additional comments received before the meeting at which the application is considered; unless (in each case) the document discloses “exempt or confidential information”

5. Any Structure Plan, Local Plan or Council Policy Document referred to in individual reports.

These papers may be inspected by contacting John Summers (Ext.7103) in the Planning Department.

APPENDIX A

Cambridge City Council Design & Conservation Panel

Note of item 4 of the meeting Wednesday 1st September 2010

Present: Prof Peter Carolin Chair Terry Gilbert RTPI Russell Davies RTPI Chris Davis IHBC David Grech English Heritage Carolin Gohler Cambridge Past, Present & Future Dr Nicholas Bullock Cambridge University Dr Koen Steemers Cambridge University Jon Harris Co-opted member Officers: John Preston City Council Jonathan Hurst City Council Lindsey Templeton City Council Charlotte Jackson City Council (items 2-3) Observing: Cllr Margaret Wright (4.) 109 Glebe Road The proposal is for a block of ten apartments on the site of a single house (to be demolished) with two detached houses at the rear. All the buildings would be of a broadly traditional form, faced in brick and render, with pitched and tiled roofs. Presentation by Nick Parkinson and Paul Dalkner of Hill Residential. The Panel’s comments are summarised as follows: � Density. Although there the buildings along Glebe Road vary in

bulk there is no justification for the density proposed here. � The presentation of the proposals failed to illustrate any

analysis of the context or the architectural qualities of the surrounding buildings.

� The Glebe Road elevations. The Panel were not convinced that the ‘semi-detached’ appearance of the block or the use of a variety of different materials would in any way mask its bulk.

� Internal planning. Although not within the Panel’s remit, the internal planning of the apartment block in particular, is of singularly poor quality.

� Dormers. The dormers on the two houses appear to be inappropriately heavy.

� Renewable energy. No information was submitted on sustainable energy use.

Conclusion. During discussion after the presentation, members of the Panel questioned why this scheme had been brought to their attention when so many similar proposals, either completed or under construction, have not. It has since been reported that the Planning Officer, Tony Collins, who was unable to attend the meeting, considered this to be a major application that had prompted a significant number of objections from neighbours who felt that the design was inappropriate for the context. As a result the development Control Manager recommended that the application be put before the Panel. The Panel were unanimous in thinking that the case for the density of development had not been made, that the relationship between the flats and the two houses to the rear had not been sufficiently considered and that the architectural detailing of the design did not take sufficient account of the qualities of the surrounding buildings. The Panel hoped that any future submission would avoid the inappropriate ostentation and ‘bling’ like qualities of the ‘Gables’ and opt for a restrained approach to the elevations more in keeping with the adjacent buildings. VERDICT – RED (unanimous)

Reminder

CABE ‘traffic light’ definitions:

GREEN: a good scheme, or one that is acceptable subject to minor improvements

AMBER: in need of significant improvements to make it acceptable, but not a matter of starting from scratch

RED: the scheme is fundamentally flawed and a fresh start is needed

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL APPENDIX C Notes of a Development Control Forum

109 Glebe Road, Cambridge

1 September 2010 10:00am – 11:30am Application No: 10/0418/FUL Site Address: 109 Glebe Road, Cambridge Description: Construction of 10 apartments and two detached dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling) Applicant: Mr Paul Dalkner, Hill Residential Ltd Agent: Not applicable Lead Petitioner: Malcolm and Fiona Bates Case Officer: Tony Collins Present: For Applicant For Petitioners Nick Parkinson – (Applicant) Fiona Bates (Petitioner) Malcolm Bates (Petitioner) Paul Surtees (Petitioner) Members of the Planning Committee Nimmo-Smith, Stuart (Vice Chair), Tunnacliffe, Wright and Znajek Other Members in Attendance Swanson Declarations of Interest by Members None. Officers John Summers (Head of Development Services - Chair), Tony Collins (Senior Planning Officer) and James Goddard (Committee Manager). Opening Remarks by Chair The Chair outlined the role and purpose of the Development Control Forum. He stated no decisions would be taken at the meeting. Text of Petition

1

The development is in a part of Glebe Road that is already extremely busy with traffic and opposite a nursery and primary school – the road will be unable to safely absorb the extra number of vehicles caused by such a high density development. The development is out of character with most of the homes in Glebe Road – it would completely overshadow and overlook the neighbouring houses. Case by Applicant Nick Parkinson made the following points: 1) The current property on site has no intrinsic value. The intention is to demolish it and replace with a three-storey building towards the front of the site (containing ten flats), and two four-bedroom houses to the rear. 2) The existing building is set back from the site boundary. A covenant restricts future development ie requires new properties on site to be set back. Buildings in the proposed development will be set back from the boundary. 3) Vegetation on the site perimeter (trees and bushes) will be protected and retained as a screen between the site and neighbours. 4) There is no particular design style to copy from neighbouring properties, although they follow traditional two/three floor build/format. 5) The applications’ style is designed to be ‘interesting’ and break up its form so it does not dominate neighbours. 6) Windows are positioned front and back to overlook the access road and gardens rather than neighbours. Boundary trees will also act as a screen. 7) The initial site proposal was submitted late 2009. The scale of the development was then amended in May 2010. Further meetings with Planning Officers and talks with residents have influenced the design concerning window layout, the access road and bin storage. The applicant intends to submit modifications concerning window layout, the access road and bin storage to the Planning Officer in future. It is hoped these will mitigate privacy/overlooking issues. 8) The site is a sustainable location for transport. Parking facilities are provided, and the site has good access routes to the city centre. Case by Petitioners Paul Surtees spoke on behalf of local residents. He made the following points: 9) Local residents are strongly opposed to this development. 10) Residents also oppose the demolition of a perfectly sound and usable family home. 11) Concerns of Local Residents:

• Out of character with Glebe Road.

2o Inappropriate development in mass, scale and density.

o Apartment block bulk would dominate the local street scene, dwarf and over-shadow immediate neighbouring properties.

• Environmental issues: o Proposed sacrifice of substantial green space that offers ecological

habitats and amenity value, negatively impacting the character and amenity of the local area.

o Appropriate positioning of TPO root protection fencing would intersect with the proposed development footprint of the apartment building.

o Increase in surface water and localised flooding through replacement of a large proportion of the available green space with hard standing or concrete.

• Impact on immediate neighbours: o Apartment block bulk would overlook/overshadow neighbouring

properties. o Location of the cycle storage shed would overlay the roots of two

with TPOs assigned trees - T8 and T9. o Other developments are already occurring in Glebe Road. The

development at 95 Glebe Road is viewed as a more appropriate precedent to the development than at 97 Glebe Road, as the original house was retained and the development took account of the views of local residents and neighbours.

• Traffic implications: o Glebe Road is a congested area. Problems of blocked access to

properties due to ‘rat-running’ in both directions between Mowbray Road and Hills Road, plus intensive parking by non-residents.

o The Perse Pelican Nursery and Pre-Preparatory School are located in Glebe Road. The school has undertaken work to reduce its impact of traffic in Glebe Road. Traffic movements arising from the development would be of particular concern as they would occur directly opposite the school, increasing the risk of accidents involving young children when they are arriving and leaving.

o Increased traffic movements and on-road parking will reduce safety in Glebe Road.

• Residents’ perceptions of errors, omissions and lack of detail in Design and Access Statement.

• Residents’ perceptions of Local Policy infringements. 12) Residents would strongly support discussions with the developer concerning:

• Redevelopment of 109 Glebe Road without demolition.

3

• Construction of up to two single-storey dwellings in the rear garden of 109 Glebe Road.

• Retention of green space, and screening with protection of TPOs. • Discussions are co-ordinated with a new City of Cambridge initiative to

address the problems of congestion in Glebe Road – learning from the Sedley Taylor/Luard Road scheme.

Case Officer’s Comments: 13) The current application was received 10 May 2010. Notification of the

application has been circulated to local residents. 14) A number of members of the public experienced difficulties accessing the

application documents on the City Council website. This required a lengthy extension to the consultation period. The Planning Officer apologised for the significant delay to the application process, and inconvenience caused.

15) Responses have been received from residents and Councillor Swanson raising the following concerns: • Principle of development. • Character of the area. • Residential amenity. • Car parking. • Highways. • Infrastructure. • Trees, landscaping and biodiversity.

16) Policy consultations have been undertaken with: • Highway Authority - no objection, but conditions suggested if

application goes ahead. Cycle storage stands not in accordance with City Council Standards. Information required regarding car park and garage dimensions, hard paving surface, and visibility splays.

• Environmental Services - no objection, but conditions suggested if application goes ahead.

• Anglian Water - foul flows from the development can be accommodated within the present network. No comment on surface water drainage as connection to public system not proposed.

• County Archaeology - condition sought to ensure archaeological investigation.

• Principal Arboricultural Officer - no objection to proposed tree removals apart from T35 holly, which can be resolved. Expressed concerns: o Trees to west of building will restrict light. o Cycle shed within RPA and unacceptable.

4

o Impossible to determine impact of underground services. o Car parking and visibility splay areas within RPAs will damage

trees. o Access road to rear may harm trees.

• Principal Landscape Officer - acceptability depends on ensuring that retained trees are suitably protected and that excessive demands for pruning will not result from the development. Questions raised regarding impact of car parking area on trees, and need for survey of RPAs of trees on adjoining sites. Hedge boundary to front of site would be preferable to railings.

17) Following the representations indicated above, the applicants have submitted additional information that has satisfied the Highway Authority on surface, visibility, parking dimensions and cycle stands. Further information has also been provided to Principal Arboricultural Officer, but Planning Officer yet to receive updated advice. Members’ Questions and Comments: 18) Clarification was sought concerning:

• Owner of covenant. • Principal Arboricultural Officer’s opinion of developments’ impact on

root systems. • Distances between proposed and existing neighbours’ boundaries. • Overshadowing. • Surface water run off issue.

Nick Parkinson answered:

• The covenant owner is unknown. However, the covenant restricts development within thirty feet of boundaries, and the proposed development will not take place in this area.

• A full tree report was undertaken as part of the application. Vegetation will be retained for perimeter screening, thus creating a green corridor on the boundary. ‘No dig’ construction will occur in tree route areas. All appropriate British standards have been followed.

• The distance between properties is eleven metres on the east side and nine to ten and a half metres on the west side.

• Information on shadowing has not been submitted as it was not requested. The applicant offered to do so.

• The applicant has checked that the site can naturally drain surface run off water. The Planning Officer will seek comments on drainage by the Environment Agency.

5

The Planning Officer noted that the applicant may submit modifications to the proposal, if so residents will be notified and the application would not be brought before Planning Committee until time for further representations had been allowed. 19) Clarification was sought if any plans considered retaining the original building in the development. Nick Parkinson said retaining the existing building in the development was not considered as it does not make best use of the site. It would be better to demolish the current building and reposition a new one. The Planning Officer observed the site was not within a Conservation Area, so demolition of the existing building has general permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Thus specific permission is not required for demolition. Malcolm Bates asked if the development could be amended so the proposed house(s) are situated on the existing house site, and apartments situated at the other end of the development (ie the mirror image of the current proposal). Nick Parkinson suggested this maybe possible. 20) Clarification was sought concerning:

• Parking arrangements. • Surface permeability as the current garden area is being replaced with

hard surfaces. Nick Parkinson answered:

• Apartment residents are allocated one car parking space per flat, householders have double garages.

• Hard surfaces will be permeable so surface water can run off, and to protect root systems.

21) Clarification was sought on the bin store situation. Nick Parkinson said the store had been moved away from the boundary with 105 Glebe Road and positioned nearer to the driveway. 22) Clarification was sought on how the opposing views of the applicant and petitioners could be brought together.

6

Nick Parkinson felt that the existing building could be replaced with a more interesting one. The development would be on a similar scale to other developments occurring in Glebe Road. Paul Surtees felt that the issue of tree protection required further clarification, particularly as no dig work may not provide the expected level of protection to root systems. The Case Officer will address tree issues in the planning report. Summing up by the Applicant 23) Re-iterated:

• The site can accommodate a two to three storey development as per others in Glebe Road.

• The site will be screened by vegetation. • The site meets parking standards and has good access to the City

Centre. • New properties will be set back further than the existing one. • Tree information has been submitted to the Council.

24) Hill Residential Ltd has experience of work in Cambridge as a developer. 25) Modifications (not amendments which require a new application) may be introduced to the scheme concerning window layout, the access road and bin storage. This is to mitigate issues raised in the consultation. The Planning Officer repeated that if the applicant submits any significant modifications to the Council, residents will be notified. Summing up by the Petitioners 26) Malcolm Bates reiterated concerns previously raised with regards to:

• Inappropriate development. • Traffic flow issues including poor visibility and increased risk of

accidents. A risk assessment by Health & Safety Executive was suggested.

• Environmental issues. Final Comments of the Chair 27) The Chair observed the following:

• Notes of the Development Control Forum will be circulated to relevant parties.

• Application to be considered at a future Planning Committee.

7

The Meeting concluded at 11:30 am

8