Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

17/0806/FUL | Erection of two bedroom dwelling house. | Land To Rear Of 45 Cavendish Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7UR

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

  • Total Consulted: 32
  • Comments Received: 19
  • Objections: 19
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 19|1|2|

3 Langham Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 3SD (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Jun 2017

Dear Mr Hammond,

I would like to strongly object to this planning application on the grounds of over development and a flood risk to the local area.

I have witnessed the devastating affect in the area in 2015 which resulted in the flooding of 5 Magnolia Close. The drainage could not cope and the building of another property in such close proximity to the boundary would only result in the same situation.

Is it the policy to cut every garden in half and build a house? Let's build a road down the middle to serve them. This planning application will set a precedent for the future where international investors can create houses of multiple
occupation in the gardens of our green and pleasant land.

These plans have got to be seen as over development of the area with the added risk of flood damage.

22 Hills Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7XA (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Jun 2017

1 known flash flooding in Magnolia Close dwelling as the low piont.
2 Setting a unacceptable president as far as back garden development is concerned.
3 The beginning of the end of this leafy suburb into high density inner City urban context.

47 Cavendish Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7UR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Jun 2017

We live at 47 Cavendish Avenue and we are writing to object to the proposed dwelling at the rear of 45 Cavendish Avenue.

Our concerns are not only in regard to the way in which this proposal affects our particular property but also in regard to the way it will affect the local area.

A number of previous objections have pointed to the policies described in Chapter 3 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. Sections 3/4: Responding to Context and 3/10: Sub-division of Existing Plots seem to be particularly relevant. We share the concerns of many who worry about the erosion of the precious green corridors that run behind the roads of the Rock Estate and that this proposed development will severely detract from the prevailing character of the area (See Section 3.30 of Cambridge Local Plan 2006). Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says, "Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens .... where
development would cause harm to the local area."

With the position of the proposed vehicular access tight upon our boundary, not only would we experience the noise and fumes from vehicles every time anyone entered or left the proposed property, but also the 'internal junction' with the driveway to serve the existing property would make it likely that vehicles would also have to wait and stop/start; further increasing the disturbance from noise, fumes and headlight glare. Please note that we have three windows of three different rooms (two bedrooms and the living room), as well as our front door, on the west side of our house and therefore they all face the space between the two houses through which the vehicular access will run.

Our garden is currently peaceful and tranquil, being part of the green corridor mentioned in the other comments. The intrusion of traffic into the rear garden of 45 would be deleterious to the enjoyment of the gardens of Nos 47 and 43.

The proposed new building is described in the Design and Access statement as being modest but its footprint is about twice the area of the main house. On three sides it is about a metre from the boundaries of the three adjacent properties.

The Design and Access statement states, "We have provided some sun-shading diagrams to illustrate how the neighbouring gardens would be affected by the new building. Whilst the diagrams show that the 2 storey element would affect the rear garden of no. 47 to part of the rear, this is quite heavily planted with trees and so we believe the 2nd storey element would not have a material affect on the rear garden". I'm afraid we must strongly disagree with this statement. Along 11.4 metres of the boundary with No 47, and one metre from it, the proposed building will rise between 4.8 and 5.0 metres above ground level. This will be visually overbearing and destroy the open aspect of our garden, thus creating an enclosed feeling and reducing the enjoyment of our garden. The "heavy planting of trees" mentioned consists in actuality of three tall and thin damson trees in the very far corner of our garden near the boundary with 5 Magnolia Close, and two large and two small ancient and diseased apple trees with hollow trunks and hollow boughs - they will need to be felled in the near future, with the two small apple trees having already lost more than half of their bulk.

The Design and Access statement says, "There is a recently consented application for a new dwelling to the rear of 4 Cavendish Avenue which we believe is pertinent to this application. See reference16/2041/FUL". We don't think so. No 4 Cavendish Avenue is completely different in that it is in the grounds of a large Victorian/Edwardian house. No 45 is on a much smaller plot on a coherently designed estate of 1920s 'homes for heroes'.

This issue of pertinence (or precedence) is of concern to many. To allow this back land development would open the door to similar developments on the Rock Estate. This would be attractive to those wanting to capitalise on the value of the land, be it the present owners or future developers.

5 Magnolia Close Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 9TU (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Jun 2017

I object to this proposal because, if sanctioned, the character of the area will be severely downgraded. We are already experiencing a lot of paving over of front gardens, and building in back gardens will further reduce the environmental quality of the area and could set a precedent for further loss of green spaces. The back gardens in the roads around Cavendish Avenue form strong green corridors which are important for urban biodiversity as they support a large number of medium/large trees and provide extensive spaces for wildlife. The area supports a healthy hedgehog population and supports a good range of bird species, which can verified by BTO Garden Bird Survey data. The benefits of green spaces for improved air quality, mental and physical welfare are all well documented, and their preservation should be considered of vital importance.

43 Cavendish Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7UR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Jun 2017

We are writing from 43 Cavendish Avenue, the adjoining house to 45 Cavendish Avenue. We are objecting to the proposed new development at 45 Cavendish Avenue. Although not opposed to the building in principle, the proposed 2 storey house is overbearing, not subservient to the existing house, and does not sit well in the surrounding area.

The scale and the scope of the proposed new development are overbearing. The Design and Access Statement emphasises that "The house is quite modest in size and scale in order to be subservient to the main house." (Page 5). However, from the plans submitted, the development is clearly neither "modest" nor "subservient to the main house". The plans explicitly show that the footprint of the proposed house is much larger than that of the existing house. Additionally, the two-storey height of the proposed house makes it visually dominating, particularly in the winter months. Taken together, the scale of the entire development (the size of the proposed house itself, the new drive leading to the proposed house, the back parking area, and the new parking area over the existing front garden) is overbearing. Crucially, the Design and Access Statement appears to consistently underplay the actual impact of the development. For example, it refers to the proposed development as "modest" on 5 separate occasions. Additionally, the plan constantly refers to the proposed house as a 2-bedroom house. But on the drawings, there is clear reference to a 3rd bedroom/study.
We also object to the proposed development overlooking our garden. The proposed house is not set in parallel to the existing houses or to Cavendish Avenue itself, but is set perpendicular to both. The plans show that the proposed house comes a long way up the garden and is extremely close to the boundaries with all the neighbouring properties. This means that the proposed house's 2nd storey windows all clearly overlook our garden, thus compromising privacy.

Altogether, this proposal would pave over a large part of the existing garden. The proposed house will therefore interrupt the existing green corridor which is currently formed by the long, uninterrupted run of back gardens on this section of Cavendish Avenue. The Design and Access statement describes the development as being "set in gardens" which suggests a large amount of green space. However, the proposed house's footprint, along with that of the car-parking area, the drive and the decking leave very little room for gardens. The landscape plan suggests mature trees will surround the house, but the house is so close to the neighbouring boundaries, it is difficult to imagine where these will be planted. This neighbourhood's social history is intimately linked to the generous back gardens. The houses on this part of Cavendish Avenue were part of the 1920s, post-Great War house building effort. The gardens - promoting self-sufficiency and the ability to grow fruit and vegetables -- were an integral part of this design.

The planning application suggests that there are numerous precedents upon which it is drawing. However, the two examples given of planning history for two similar houses, i.e. no.43 and no.47 Cavendish Avenue, are ancillary accommodation, not separate dwellings on subdivided land, as the proposed development will be. They keep the integrity of the existing green corridor, do not subdivide the land and are therefore not comparable. Consequently, they cannot be drawn on as a precedent for this development. Additionally, the example of No. 4 Cavendish Avenue is an illegitimate comparison, since the size of the existing Victorian house and garden makes it a much larger plot.

There are also two troubling procedural issues. First, there was no submission for a Winter Solstice sun path, so we are unable to see the direct effect upon our garden. We use our garden year-round and the proposal therefore does not make it clear that we will not be overshadowed in the winter. Second, the pre-application was not made available for public scrutiny, nor was the cited 'Principle of Development'.

Finally, planning decisions of this type are enormously important in principle. There are many ways in which this proposed house may contravene existing planning guidelines, as highlighted by other comments. But the decisions made will outlast all of us - in 50 years time, most of us will be gone, but the proposed development will be, literally, set in stone -- potentially permanently changing the nature of Cavendish Avenue.

5 Magnolia Close Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 9TU (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 12 Jun 2017

I live at 5 Magnolia Close, immediately adjacent to the application site and the proposed two-storey dwelling and associated works. I strongly object to the proposals which would completely change the relationship between the neighbouring land and our family home and result in an unduly adverse loss of existing levels of amenity by way of concerns about water run-off and flooding causing harm to the character, appearance and special qualities of the locality.

Building within three metres of our boundary and at the extreme rear of the existing garden of 45 Cavendish Avenue appears to be in contravention with much of the 2006 & 2014 Local Plan.


Policy 3/12 considers the design of new buildings and requires proposals to demonstrate they would have a positive impact upon the immediate locality and would allow for safe and workable access arrangements for all users or visitors. In this case, not only would the proposed property clearly be harmful to both the amenities of neighbours and the character and appearance of the locality, but would also appear contrived and awkward in its siting and access arrangements.

Not only would the deviation away from the linear arrangement of properties which characterises Cavendish Avenue and Blinco Grove cause harm to the existing character of the locality, but would also see a significant diminution of the 'green corridor' between these streets formed by the rear gardens of properties. This would conflict with the aims of Policy 4/3 which requires the Safeguarding of Features of Amenity or Nature Conservation Value. Given the nature of the proposals and the restricted form of the application site, it is not accepted that any appropriate mitigation or amelioration measures could be made.

The green corridor has an important ecological function, but it is also important in the surface water drainage characteristics of the locality; an area both identified as having a high risk of flooding, but also where we have suffered directly.
In July 2015 our property, which is at the low point of Blinco Grove & Magnolia Close, was inundated with surface water causing severe damage. A number of other properties close by suffered similar results. The proposal to build a new house within three metres of our rear boundary will significantly increase the already considerable risk by reducing soft permeable surface (garden) with the proposed development
Policy 4/13 of the Local Plan is very clear that development proposals which would cause disbenefits for any neighbours cannot be supported. Equally, the wording of Policy 4/16 considers Flooding directly and is explicit that development proposals will not be permitted "if it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere".

We note that the Council's Sustainable Drainage Engineer has advised the development is Unacceptable and should be refused given the high flood risk in the area and the complete lack of this very important issue having been given any thought as part of the proposals. The NPPF advises that councils should be proactive in seeking to address flood risk and require development proposals to demonstrate how they have been designed in response to local circumstances and to "ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere".
In summary, the proposed development will have an unduly adverse impact upon our home and existing levels of amenity.it would also significantly increase future flood risk to our property

72 Hills Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7XB (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 12 Jun 2017

I object to the development of a two story house in the garden of 45 Cavendish avenue for the following reasons:

- The proposed development is in direct conflict with the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 Policy 3/10 Subdivision of Existing Plots.

- It creates a further erosion of green space that historically was an orchard and still has that country feel which is hard to find anywhere else within the City boundaries.

- The proposed development is out of context and does not fit in the style of the neighbouring properties.

- It sets the wrong precedent for the development of other gardens in Cavendish avenue, Hills Avenue and Holbrook road.

- The close proximity to the neighbouring garden of 47 Cavendish avenue has an adverse effect on the quality of living through reduction in natural light levels, increase of noise levels and sense of enclosure.

- It has an adverse effect on biodiversity and creates a loss of a vital wildlife corridor in this part of the City.




72 Hills Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7XB (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 10 Jun 2017

This proposed development is entirely out of keeping with the unique environment of the neighbourhood. The building would impose on its direct neighbours. It is far too large and far too close to the boundaries. The parking arrangements are crammed in and utterly inadequate - parking is bound to over spill onto the road.
The building would destroy a valuable area of green space with impacts on water run off, mature trees and a vital wildlife corridor. The area features long narrow traditional gardens associated with 1930s semis. Together they provide a wonderful haven. The green area soaks up rainfall reducing stress on drainage systems and the trees filter particulates from the air. The mature trees also provide habitat for birds that cannot thrive in saplings or smaller species. A block in this wildlife corridor would prevent the movement of hedgehogs, foxes, muntjac, etc. and result in their loss not just from 45 Cavendish Avenue but from many other properties too. Cambridge cannot afford to lose this green space.
In summary, I oppose this development, because it threatens to destroy the unique character of the neighbourhood, impose on its direct neighbours and inflict severe environmental damage at a time when we should be concerned about run off, air quality and biodiversity.

2B Cavendish Avenue Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7US (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 07 Jun 2017

I would like to add my name to those local residents objecting to this development. But more importantly I request that any decision made is done so by councillors in possession of the relevant supporting information.

This is the second such application in Cavendish Avenue recently, and on the first occasion the Planning Committee and the Council Officers present gave the impression that they were uncertain of the implications for backland development of the government's National Planning Policy Framework and the current and proposed Local Plans. The confusion in the room resulted in the previous application being waved through, for want of any real understanding of these.

This must not be allowed to happen again.

If this development is presented to the Planning Committee, it must be prefaced by a full and clear statement from Council Officers as to the implications of relevant sections in the government's National Planning Policy Framework and the current and proposed Local Plans.

118 Blinco Grove Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7TT (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jun 2017

I am very concerned that this proposed new build would have a significant impact on the bungalows in the adjoining Magnolia Close.
I feel that if planning is granted for this 2-story house it would set a precedent for this type of development in Cavendish Avenue where many of the houses have a wide side access.
We need to preserve the character of this area of Cambridge
for our

Showing 1-10 of 19|1|2|

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.