3 commercial units and 7 homes at 1 Royston Road, Foxton

What was proposed

The application proposed one building containing three commercial units, seven residential units and associated landscaping.

“The proposal 3.1 This application is proposing a mixed use development including 3 No. commercial units, 7 No. Residential units and associated landscaping…”

“The application is proposing the development of a single building within the site, to provide a mix of 3No. commercial units and 7 residential units. The layout of the site is such that the buildings footprint is entirely within the development framework boundary and therefore also outside of the green belt.”

Officer report

The site and its constraints

The previously developed site was beside the railway station, A10 and level crossing, with part in the countryside and Cambridge Green Belt.

“Table 2 Consultee summary 2. Site description and context 2.1 The application site is approximately 0.18 hectares in size, previously comprising a single residential dwelling that has since been demolished as approved under Prior Approval. The entire site previously formed the curtilage of No.1 Royston Road when it existed as a residential dwelling.”

“The site borders the Foxton Railway station platform and its seating building to the north with the crossing of the A10 over the railway line immediately adjacent the northwest of the site. When visiting the site, it is noted that both the railway station and A10 are extremely frequently used, a combination of which means that the railway crossing is also often in use restricting traffic flow.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and advice

The former dwelling was demolished after prior approval, a replacement self-build dwelling was permitted, and pre-application advice supported a smaller scheme within the framework boundary.

“The application is accompanied by the following supporting reports and key plans which have been amended as indicated: • 1 Royston Road, Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment’ (LVIA) • ACOUSTICS DESIGN STATEMENT (J005435-8723-JOC-04) • VIBRATION ASSESSMENT (J005435-8740-JOC-01) • Transport Statement 4. Relevant site history Reference Description Outcome 24/02734/PRIOR Demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and construction of 1 No. self/custom build dwellinghouse.”

“Following this decision, full planning permission was granted last year for a replacement self-build dwelling within the site, given that the previous, historic use of the site was for residential purposes. Important to note however, is that if this applicaiton was granted permission, this previous prior approval would not be capable of being built out.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because significant concerns remained about landscaping, drainage, highway safety, parking and future residents’ amenity.

“In line with technical consultee comments received, there is considered to be insufficient information provided with regards to drainage and highways safety impacts. Given this lack of information, officers are not confident that the development would not cause harm to both highway safety and drainage/ flood risk surrounding the site.”

“Whilst the proposed development is not considered to result in any significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. There are significant concerns regarding the amenity provision for future occupiers of the residential units proposed.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council, Anglian Water, highways, environmental health, landscape, flood, sustainable drainage and urban design officers objected for various reasons.

“Future flood risk within the site, access for emergency vehicles and sufficient electric power to accommodate the development. Anglian Water - Object 6.6 Objects to the proposed development due to a lack of capacity at the Foxton Water Recycling Centre to accommodate the wastewater flows created by the proposal. It is therefore considered that there is insufficient infrastructure capacity to prevent environmental harm arising from the proposed development.”

“The Flood Risk Assessment and foul water drainage strategy provided are acceptable, however there is insufficient information regarding a suitable surface water drainage strategy. Sustainability Officer- No Objection 6.23 No objection to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding:”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirty representations objected to parking, highway safety, scale, design, drainage, noise, amenity and overdevelopment, while seven supported the scheme.

“Waste Officer – No objection 6.27 Further information is required in order to demonstrate that an acceptable waste provision can be made within the site. it is considered that this can be secured by way of a suitably worded condition. 7. Third party representations 7.1 37 representations have been received, 7 in support and 30 in objection.”

“Those in objection have raised the following issues: • Insufficient car parking provision to support the proposed development, resulting in further pressures upon the surrounding highway • Highway safety impacts arising from the access onto Station Road • Excessive scale • Design that is out of keeping with the surrounding context • No need identified for the proposed development • Failure to take into account local housing need • Overdevelopment of the site • Potential…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people spoke against the application, the applicant spoke for it, and the ward councillor spoke against it.

The committee vote

Councillors unanimously supported adding a further refusal reason concerning the building’s scale and its impact on the Green Belt and countryside.

“Councillor Lisa Redrup proposed and Councillor Peter Sandford seconded the addition of a further reason for refusal due to the scale and massing of the building and the impact on the Green Belt and the countryside referring to Local Plan Policies NH/8 and HQ/1. This additional reason for refusal was supported unanimously by the Committee.”

Minutes