Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

17/0792/FUL | Demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a detached three bedroom residential unit. | 23 Baldock Way Cambridge CB1 7UX

Any comments about this planning application not made via this web site can be found by clicking on the documents tab below.

  • Total Consulted: 15
  • Comments Received: 7
  • Objections: 5
  • Supporting: 2
  • View all comments

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

71 Glebe Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7TF (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Aug 2017

This email is being submitted as a group by the following neighbours

60 Glebe Road
69 Glebe Road
71 Glebe Road
73 Glebe Road

We have looked at the revised plan and we still feel that this proposal has not been changed significantly enough to be acceptable to the neighbouring properties and will still have a negative impact. We therefore strongly object for all the reasons we stated individually in our original responses and we would still like these to be considered.
We would like to reiterate that previous applications for family dwellings of this nature were not approved . The Council were very clear that the last application that was approved was only given approval due to the fact that there was a break in the roofs ridge line and that the 2 small units were more akin to flats rather than a family type dwelling, subsequently they felt that the plans had demonstrated 'just' enough outdoor amenity space. This new proposal does not address amenity space whatsoever and this was another reason for refusal at inspector level on a previous application/s. The Council were also very clear that their decision to approve the last application was very tight and that the plans submitted were only just good enough to address concerns. In our opinion, these new plans only serve to bring back all the issues and the reasons why all historic applications were denied.

Comment submitted date: Tue 16 May 2017

Owner and Occupier of:
71 Glebe Road
Cambridge
CB1 7TF




May 16th 2017


Dear Mr Patel,

RE: PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: 17/0792/FUL - 23 BALDOCK WAY, CAMBRIDGE, CB1 7UR

I refer to your letter dated 11th May 2017 advising me that a Planning Application for a detached three bedroom house has been submitted adjacent to my property. I write to OBJECT to the application for the following reasons:

You will be aware from your records that planning permission was refused on the application site for a detached house (Ref C75/0789) and a chalet bungalow (Ref C77/0532) in 1975 and 1977 respectively for reasons of amenity and the impact of the proposals on adjoining dwellings. A planning application for a bungalow (Ref C78/0035) was then approved in 1978 on the basis that this was a single storey dwelling. Further plans were then submitted and refused in February 2014 for a detached house (Ref 14/0129/FUL) and in October 2014 for a chalet bungalow (Ref 14/1652/FUL). The reasons that were given for refusing these applications were as follows:

1. Due to the height of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the common boundaries with 71 and 73 Glebe Road, the proposed dwelling would have a significant adverse impact on the occupiers of these neighbouring properties through an overbearing sense of enclosure. The proposed dwelling would dominate the outlook from these neighbouring properties and enclose them to a far worse degree that the existing bungalow on the site. The proposed dwelling is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

2. The proposed dwelling would stand to the west of the rear garden on 71 Glebe Road and in the absence of a shadow study to demonstrate otherwise, due to the orientation of the dwelling and its height; it would be likely to cast shadow over this neighbour's garden in the afternoon to an unacceptable degree. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

3. The proposal to provide a family dwelling by leaving very little external amenity space is unacceptable in that the proposal would not provide the attractive, high quality accommodation required by Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 3/7. As very little external amenity space is provided, the proposal fails to provide accommodation that offers an adequate level of residential amenity for its future occupants and in doing so has not recognised the constraints of the site or responded to the context of the site and its surroundings. For these reasons the proposal in contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Through the appeals process, the Planning Inspectorate became involved in application 14/0129/FUL and upheld the decision to refuse planning permission due to the material harm the proposal would have on numbers 71 and 73 Glebe Road and the lack of private amenity space for the occupants or any future occupants of the proposal.
In August 2015 further plans were submitted for a pair of 2 bedroom units. This proposal was recommended for approval by the Council and the Committee agreed with this in January 2016. After this application was approved I had written correspondence and a meeting with Council staff members, Sarah Dyer and Simon Payne. It was explained to me that the reason this application had been permitted and the others hadn't were for the following reasons:

1. The roof was no longer a continuous line; this would reduce mass and provide an outlook through the development, giving more openness to numbers 71 and 73.

2. The proposal was significantly lower in height than previous schemes and appears lower in height than the existing bungalow. This would not appear to be unduly dominant or overbearing.

3. The proposed development would have an overall lower ridge than the existing bungalow so would not be any more dominant than the existing bungalow or appear to be any more dominant or overbearing with regards to the outlook for numbers 71 and 73.

4. The level of amenity space for the proposal is acceptable. The proposed houses are more akin to flats/apartments and are unlikely to be occupied by families. The level of amenity space associated with flats is generally lower than that for houses.

I can provide written evidence from the Council outlining these reasons if required.

The current plans submitted are not dissimilar to those that have previously been refused in terms of the significant adverse impact it will have on neighbouring properties and amenity. This application only serves to reinstate the issues that were identified in all the plans that were refused and refutes the Councils reasoning above for supporting the last application. If the Council were minded to support this application, I feel this could leave them open to criticism and challenge by all parties involved in respect of previously rejected applications. I for one would be requesting a thorough explanation as to how this decision is reached.

The current plans would have an impact on my property in terms of height, mass and dominance, overlooking and privacy, close proximity to my boundary, outlook and an overbearing sense of enclosure. It does not allow for enough outdoor amenity space for a property of this size or for a family dwelling, it is a complete overdevelopment of such a small site. The proposal does not address concerns raised previously with regards to the drainage systems. The existing bungalow and numbers 73, 71 and 69 Glebe Road share the same drainage/sewage system. This system does not always adequately cope with the requirements of all 4 of these properties. On numerous occasions the drain at the rear of the bungalow and the drain at the front of number 69 have become blocked, myself and my neighbour at number 69 have had to call out the relevant professionals to deal with this. There have been a couple of incidents where the drain at the rear of the bungalow has completed over- flowed and raw sewage has spilled out into my back garden. The proposed plans appear to allow for 3 more bathrooms/toilets. This would put a much higher demand on the current drainage system and I would be really concerned that this would become completely unmanageable and could have a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of all parties.

Consultation

Section 1.5 of the design and access statement, submitted to the Council by the applications agent, refers to public consultation and a conversation I had with the agent. Whilst I was really appreciative of finally being consulted, this process has proven to be a pointless exercise. The agent has misinterpreted our discussion and the information he has provided regarding this is factually incorrect. He has stated the following about what I supposedly said:

'This neighbour expressed her concerns with the previously approved proposal and the overdevelopment of the site. She felt this scheme put forward to the council was more suitable and a family dwelling welcomed in this location. The onsite parking and setting back of the building was considered an acceptable approach rather than what has been approved but she still had concerns with the overshadowing of the rear garden amenity area. As such she would be recommending refusal on this basis.'

On no occasion did I say that I thought the scheme put forward was more suitable, what I actually said was that I would much prefer a family to live in my back garden over students and this was already being achieved through the existing bungalow. I did say that I was pleased that parking had been factored in as this is a real issue in the area. On no occasion did I say that the setting back of the building was considered a more acceptable approach and I'm actually confused and perplexed as to where the agent even got this from. I did not say that I would only be objecting for the reasons of overshadowing of the rear garden amenity space. What I did say was that in order to protect my property from dominance, enclosure, massing, overlooking and overshadowing that I would be objecting. I also said that I would be objecting because the proposal did not suitably allow for enough outdoor amenity space for a house of this size. The agent shared with me that his client wanted to develop this site in order to have a family home in this area. However due to the fact that the area was such a sought after place that it is very rare that properties became available. I explained to him that I did not share this view, I have lived in my property for over 20 years, and properties do come onto the market. I advised him that he may want to inform his client that a significant development is just being completed in Glebe Road and properties were currently for sale. I also stated that the existing bungalow is a 3 bedroom property that can comfortably house a family and I didn't see the need or sense in demolishing this to replace it with another 3 bedroom property. I have since contacted the agent and asked him to contact the Council to remove this incorrect information. However at the time of submitting my objections this has not been done.

Conclusion

I do not feel that the new planning application has sufficiently addressed the issues that were given for refusal in several of the previous applications; in fact it has reinstated many of these issues. Due to this, and previous historic applications being refused, I think this application should be refused. I would also like to reiterate that the existing bungalow was only granted on the basis that it was a single storey dwelling and the height of this did not cause unacceptable dominance. The current plans state that the height of the property is the same as the height of the plans that were approved in January 2016. This is hard to determine when there does not appear to be any measurements listed. However, the drawings that are submitted suggest that it would actually be taller than those that were previously approved. Even if the height were the same, this application was not approved on height alone; it was also felt that it was more acceptable due to the break in the roofs ridge line. The proposal does not allow for such a break and subsequently gives the sense of dominance, enclosure and massing to an unacceptable degree.

I trust that my comments are self-explanatory but if you require any further information or clarification please do not hesitate to contact me. I also welcome anybody who is part of the decision making process to visit my property if required.

I would appreciate it if you could please keep me informed of any amendments to the application and the decision when it is made.

Yours faithfully,

Owner and Occupier of 71 Glebe Road.

45 Cavendish Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7UR (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Fri 14 Jul 2017

Not Available

59 Hills Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7UZ (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Tue 30 May 2017

I would like to register my support for this application.
I think the existing 3-bed bungalow is of no real merit. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's an eyesore not befitting the area.

The proposed application is a well-designed modern property with no intensification of the site as they are proposing to replace one 3-bed property with another. In fact, there even seems to be a slight improvement in amenity space.

For these reasons, I would like to register my support for this application.

69 Glebe Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7TF (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 May 2017

We write to object to the planning application for a two storey three bedroom detached house at the above address for the following reasons.

Over-development
A two storey house on such a small site represents over-development. The original permission to develop the plot, which was previously the garden of 73 Glebe Road, made clear that only a bungalow not a house was allowable. The proposal is considerably larger than the current bungalow on the site and the council's standards for garden space and/or amenity cannot be met.

Dominance and overbearing
While the proposal focuses on artist drawings of the Baldock Road aspect, it includes no consideration of the aspects from its immediate neighbours, numbers 69, 71 or 73. Photographs uploaded in response to the proposal clearly show the obvious prospect for significant dominance and overbearing from the aspect of number 71. Despite attempts to distinguish the exterior tone of the upper floor, the exterior walls remain extremely close to the boundaries of this small plot.

Flooding
In recent years, with increased rainfall, our back garden regularly becomes waterlogged. Number 71 is usually more severely affected, with the rear part usually under water for several weeks. We are concerned that more extensive foundation work will further natural drainage in this area.

Sewer
Sewage pipes from the bungalow, numbers 69, 71 and 73 Glebe Road converge into a common drain which runs through our property alongside our house. The common drain blocks regularly and we are concerned that this issue will be exacerbated as a consequence of the proposed larger construction.

Woodlands Farm, Hive Road Witcham Ely CB6 2LE (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 May 2017

I am writing as the owner and former occupier of 73 Glebe Road. I object to the proposal for the same reasons as our tenants and their neighbour at number 71 Glebe Road.

This is the fourth recent planning application seeking redevelopment of the existing bungalow. Two of these (Feb 2014 - 14/0129/FUL,detached house; October 2014 - 14/1652/FUL; chalet bungalow) were refused planning permission on the following grounds:

(1) Overbearing enclosure of the neighbouring properties 71 and 73 Glebe Road

(2) Shadow across the garden of 71 Glebe Road

(3) Insufficient external amenity space

A third submission (15/1589/FUL) was made in August 2015 for a pair of 2 bedroom residential units. This was recommended for approval by the council and agreed by the Planning Committee in Jan 2016 despite objections from myself, our neighbours, our councillor and other local residents. Permission was granted because, with respect to the other previous failed proposals, this application was deemed to be less overbearing (lower height, lower ridge, discontinuous roof line, lack of external amenities less of an issue for apartment-type dwellings). However, whilst successful in obtaining planning permission, development of the site has never begun.

The current submission (17/0792/FUL) is for a detached three bedroom residential unit. This will have a higher roofline than the previously successful application raising the question of overbearing and shading once more. As a family home, there is an expectation of sufficient external amenities. However, the plan shows very limited usable external space. The north of the property is taken up by two very tight parking spaces. Whilst the property will be set back from the highway, it is largely open to Baldock Way with low level planting envisaged. External amenity space is restricted to a screened courtyard area adjoining the gardens of 71 and 73 Glebe Road; this is insufficient for a family living in a property of this size.

In addition, the proposal does not address previously-raised concerns regarding drainage. The existing bungalow and numbers 73, 71 and 69 Glebe Road share the same drainage/sewage system, which does not always adequately cope with the requirements of all four properties, with regular blockages and even the overflowing of raw sewage onto gardens. The proposed plans appear to allow a total of four bathrooms/toilets, which would put an even higher demand on the current overloaded drainage system.

When we lived at 73 Glebe Road, the perfectly serviceable bungalow at 23 Baldock Way suited the elderly couple living there admirably. The succession of proposals submitted since 2014 have all striven to overdevelop this plot and I feel that the current submission is another over-ambitious development.

73 Glebe Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7TF (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 24 May 2017

I object to the proposal for the same reasons as my neighbour, who lives at number 71 Glebe Road. The objections are as follows:

You will be aware from your records that planning permission was refused on the application site for a detached house (Ref C75/0789) and a chalet bungalow (Ref C77/0532) in 1975 and 1977 respectively for reasons of amenity and the impact of the proposals on adjoining dwellings. A planning application for a bungalow (Ref C78/0035) was then approved in 1978 on the basis that this was a single storey dwelling. Further plans were then submitted and refused in February 2014 for a detached house (Ref 14/0129/FUL) and in October 2014 for a chalet bungalow (Ref 14/1652/FUL). The reasons that were given for refusing these applications were as follows:

1. Due to the height of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the common boundaries with 71 and 73 Glebe Road, the proposed dwelling would have a significant adverse impact on the occupiers of these neighbouring properties through an overbearing sense of enclosure. The proposed dwelling would dominate the outlook from these neighbouring properties and enclose them to a far worse degree that the existing bungalow on the site. The proposed dwelling is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

2. The proposed dwelling would stand to the west of the rear garden on 71 Glebe Road and in the absence of a shadow study to demonstrate otherwise, due to the orientation of the dwelling and its height; it would be likely to cast shadow over this neighbour's garden in the afternoon to an unacceptable degree. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

3. The proposal to provide a family dwelling by leaving very little external amenity space is unacceptable in that the proposal would not provide the attractive, high quality accommodation required by Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 3/7. As very little external amenity space is provided, the proposal fails to provide accommodation that offers an adequate level of residential amenity for its future occupants and in doing so has not recognised the constraints of the site or responded to the context of the site and its surroundings. For these reasons the proposal in contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Through the appeals process, the Planning Inspectorate became involved in application 14/0129/FUL and upheld the decision to refuse planning permission due to the material harm the proposal would have on numbers 71 and 73 Glebe Road and the lack of private amenity space for the occupants or any future occupants of the proposal.

In August 2015 further plans were submitted for a pair of 2 bedroom units. This proposal was recommended for approval by the Council and the Committee agreed with this in January 2016. After this application was approved I had written correspondence and a meeting with Council staff members, Sarah Dyer and Simon Payne. It was explained to me that the reason this application had been permitted and the others hadn't were for the following reasons:

1. The roof was no longer a continuous line; this would reduce mass and provide an outlook through the development, giving more openness to numbers 71 and 73.

2. The proposal was significantly lower in height than previous schemes and appears lower in height than the existing bungalow. This would not appear to be unduly dominant or overbearing.

3. The proposed development would have an overall lower ridge than the existing bungalow so would not be any more dominant than the existing bungalow or appear to be any more dominant or overbearing with regards to the outlook for numbers 71 and 73.

4. The level of amenity space for the proposal is acceptable. The proposed houses are more akin to flats/apartments and are unlikely to be occupied by families. The level of amenity space associated with flats is generally lower than that for houses.

The current plans submitted are not dissimilar to those that have previously been refused in terms of the significant adverse impact it will have on neighbouring properties
and amenity. This application only serves to reinstate the issues that were identified in all the plans that were refused and refutes the Councils reasoning above for supporting the last application. If the Council were minded to support this application, I feel this could leave them open to criticism and challenge by all parties involved in respect of previously rejected applications. I for one would be requesting a thorough explanation as to how this decision is reached.

The current plans would have an impact on my property in terms of height, mass and dominance, overlooking and privacy, close proximity to my boundary, outlook and an overbearing sense of enclosure. It does not allow for enough outdoor amenity space for a property of this size or for a family dwelling, it is a complete overdevelopment of such a small site. The proposal does not address concerns raised previously with regards to the drainage systems. The existing bungalow and numbers 73, 71 and 69 Glebe Road share the same drainage/sewage system. This system does not always adequately cope with the requirements of all 4 of these properties. On numerous occasions the drain at the rear of the bungalow and the drain at the front of number 69 have become blocked, myself and my neighbour at number 69 have had to call out the relevant professionals to deal with this. There have been a couple of incidents where the drain at the rear of the bungalow has completed over- flowed and raw sewage has spilled out into my back garden. The proposed plans appear to allow for 3 more bathrooms/toilets. This would put a much higher demand on the current drainage system and I would be really concerned that this would become completely unmanageable and could have a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of all parties.

In summary, I do not feel that the new planning application has sufficiently addressed the issues that were given for refusal in several of the previous applications; in fact it has reinstated many of these issues. Due to this, and previous historic applications being refused, I think this application should be refused. I would also like to reiterate that the existing bungalow was only granted on the basis that it was a single storey dwelling and the height of this did not cause unacceptable dominance. The current plans state that the height of the property is the same as the height of the plans that were approved in January 2016. This is hard to determine when there does not appear to be any measurements listed. However, the drawings that are submitted suggest that it would actually be taller than those that were previously approved. Even if the height were the same, this application was not approved on height alone; it was also felt that it was more acceptable due to the break in the roofs ridge line. The proposal does not allow for such a break and subsequently gives the sense of dominance, enclosure and massing to an unacceptable degree.

60 Glebe Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7SZ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 21 May 2017

I object to this development as it will negatively affect neighbours owing to the increase of density and height of the proposed building. The provision of off-site parking is limited (nominally two parking spaces but only if you park one vehicle behind the other) which will likely result in an increase in on-road parking, an increasingly significant problem in this area, especially given how narrow Baldock Way (during the week the whole of that end of Baldock Way is regularly completely filled with parked cars). I also believe it is overdevelopment of what is a tiny site unsuited to a 3-bedroom property owing to the lack of land associated with it.

an idox solution (opens in a new window)

About the register
The online register allows you to search and view details about planning, tree works and building control applications. Planning and tree works applications can be commented upon by registering as a user. Once registered you can also save searches, track applications and receive email alerts.

Help using the system
Some help is available within the system. We have also produced the following guides to help you.

Submission of comments
The planning system depends on open and transparent procedures. Any comments that you make are a public record. Please read our data protection policy and guidance on what information we publish online.

Feedback
Please email if you have any questions or comments regarding this service.

System Availability
Service updates are available on the Public Access home page.