Agenda item

Erection of two new private residential blocks comprising 158 student rooms and associated facilities

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.    That the application was contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and, specifically, the following criteria therein, namely

·         Criterion A - Preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape

·         Criterion C - Include variety and interest with a coherent, place-responsive design, which is legible and creates a positive sense of place and identity whilst also responding to the local context and respecting local distinctiveness

·         Criterion D - Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, density, mass, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area.

·         Criterion E - Deliver a strong visual relationship between buildings that comfortably define and enclose streets, squares and public places, creating interesting vistas, skylines, focal points and appropriately scaled landmarks along routes and around spaces;

2.    That the design of the proposed development would be contrary to the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2011;

3.    That the landscaping/planting proposals illustrated on the submitted plans did not provide high quality landscaping which integrated the development with its surroundings and the landscaping and planting measures which had been proposed were not considered to be viable. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy HQ/1(m).

4.     That insufficient information had been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether there would be harm to protected species.

Members visited the site on 9 July 2019.

Councillor Pippa Heylings declared a non-pecuniary interest because, as one of the local Members, she had met with the developers but was considering the matter afresh.

Jan Chadwick (objector) and Mike Galloway (Orchard Park Community Council) addressed the meeting.

Members noted that the first bullet point in paragraph 3 of the supplementary report should refer to a car ownership restriction rather than a five-year clawback provision.

Members had reservations about the application, based mainly on the very limited number of car parking spaces within the development, and uncertainty as to the identity of the intended occupants. Design and noise (from the adjacent A14)) werealso issues, as was the perceived absence of placemaking and quality  of life.

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the supplementary report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development (as amended). Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.    That the application was contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and, specifically, the following criteria therein, namely

·         Criterion A - Preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape

·         Criterion C - Include variety and interest with a coherent, place-responsive design, which is legible and creates a positive sense of place and identity whilst also responding to the local context and respecting local distinctiveness

·         Criterion D - Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, density, mass, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area.

·         Criterion E - Deliver a strong visual relationship between buildings that comfortably define and enclose streets, squares and public places, creating interesting vistas, skylines, focal points and appropriately scaled landmarks along routes and around spaces;

2.    That the design of the proposed development would be contrary to the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2011;

3.    That the landscaping/planting proposals illustrated on the submitted plans did not provide high quality landscaping which integrated the development with its surroundings and the landscaping and planting measures which had been proposed were not considered to be viable. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy HQ/1(m).

 That insufficient information had been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether there would be harm to protected species.