Single-storey dwelling at 268 High Street, Cottenham

What was proposed

The application proposed dividing the existing plot to build a single-storey dwelling, widen the existing access and provide associated works.

“25/01395/FUL – 268 High Street, Cottenham, CB24 8RZ Application details Report to: Planning Committee Lead Officer: Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development Ward/parish: Cottenham / Cottenham Proposal: Subdivision of 268 High Street for the erection of a single storey dwelling and associated works including the widening of existing access.”

“Report contents Document section Document heading 1 Executive summary 2 Site description and context 3 The proposal 4 Relevant site history 5 Policy 6 Consultations 7 Third party representations 8 Member representations 9 Planning Background 10 Assessment 11 Principle of development 12 Design, layout, scale and landscaping 13 Heritage assets 14 Carbon reduction and sustainable design 15 Biodiversity 16 Water management and flood risk 17 Highway safety and transport impacts…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is behind an early nineteenth-century dwelling within the Cottenham Conservation Area, with residential and commercial development around its rear garden.

“Site description and context 2.1 268 High Street Cottenham, is an early 19 th century two storey dwelling situated within the Cottenham Conservation Area. The High Street has a mixture of commercial and residential properties. To the rear of the site along Lyles Road and Eastlands the site is predominantly residential in nature.”

“The site falls within the Development Framework and Cottenham Conservation Area. The site falls within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) however, falls within an area of surface water flooding. The proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the subdivision of 268 High Street for the erection of a single storey dwelling and associated works including the widening of existing access.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A larger bungalow was refused in 2004, while the current scheme reduced the dwelling’s size and height and changed its layout to address earlier concerns.

“The application has been amended to address representations, and further consultations have been carried out as appropriate. The alterations included the reduction in the eaves and ridge height of the dwelling. Relevant site history Reference Description Outcome S/0211/04/F Bungalow Refused S/95/0385 GARAGE Permitted S/95/0384/CAC TOTAL DEMOLITION OF TIMBER OUTBUILDING/GARAGE Permitted S/0704/86/F EXTENSION Permitted C/0222/69/ PARKING OF CARAVAN (EXTN.”

“S/1391/96/F One Bungalow Permitted S/1933/97/F BUNGALOW Permitted Eastlands Close S/0038/91/F 16 HOUSES Permitted 264 High Street Cottenham S/4698/18/OL Outline application for up to 1000sqm A1 A2 B1 C3 D1 use in the alternative or as part of a mixed development with all matters reserved - Permitted S/91/0142 EXTENSION TO EXISTING OFFICES AND FORMATION OF 2 NEW SHOPS Permitted S/1225/76/F Erection of a Store Permitted 262 High Street, Cottenham S/77/1749 Extension to…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the location was sustainable, impacts were limited, and the benefits of a new home outweighed the identified harm.

“The application would result in a sustainably constructed dwelling located in central location within a Rural Centre. Given the scale and massing of the building, would result in only minimal visual harm to its surroundings and would be viewed in relation with the 20 th century housing developments. Whilst in close proximity to other residential properties it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to significantly harmful amenity impacts.”

“The proposal would also provide economic benefits through employment during construction as well as providing a further home to support the village economy. When weighing up the harm against the benefits detailed above, officers conclude that the benefits outweigh the harm in this instance.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Seven third-party objections raised concerns about design, heritage, amenity, parking, highway safety, biodiversity, drainage, flooding and overdevelopment.

“Those in objection have raised the following issues: • Character, appearance and scale • Density and overdevelopment • Heritage impacts • Residential amenity impact (impacts on daylight, sunlight, enclosure, privacy, rear amenity sizes, noise and disturbance) • Loss of Open Space • No scales on plans • Highway safety • Car parking and parking stress • Obstructions for emergency vehicles, waste lorries • Loss of/harm to biodiversity • -Drainage and flooding…”

“The above representations are a summary of the comments that have been received. Full details of the representations are available on the Council’s website. Member Representations 8.1 Cllr Wilson has made a representation objecting to the application on the following grounds: - Neighbour Amenity - Biodiversity - Highway Safety - Parking Stress…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A written objector’s statement was circulated, a representative spoke against the proposal, and Councillor Eileen Wilson spoke as the local district member.

What members debated

Members discussed parking, neighbouring concerns, conservation area coverage, the dwelling’s modest scale, sustainable location and existing backland development.

“In response to issues raised by the local district member: i. The DM Team Leader noted concerns raised about parking and noted that residents had been parking in an area to access services on the High Street. It was noted that the Highways Authority hadn’t objected to the application on highway safety concerns. ii. Noted comments about hedgehog habitats and advised that condition 7 would pick this matter up.”

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. Noted the concerns raised around the loss of a parking space however noted that people shouldn’t have been parking in the location anyway. ii. Noted concerns raised by the neighbour but the committee could only consider the application as submitted. iii. Not all of the site was in the Conservation Area; the proposed dwelling was modest in size and scale and would be in a sustainable location. iv.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application by eight votes to one, subject to the report’s conditions with minor amendments delegated to officers.

“The Delivery Manager summarised the recommendation set out on p94 of the agenda to approve the application subject to the planning conditions set out in the officer report with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers.”

“By 8 votes in favour (Cllrs Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Tumi Hawkins, Lisa Redrup, James Rixon, Peter Sandford) and 1 vote against (Cllr Heather Williams), the Committee approved the application subject to: • The planning conditions set out in the officer’s report with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers.”

Minutes