®Planning appeal decision
Land Comprising, Kendal Court, Anglia House, Kendal House, , Regency House and 1 Cambridge Road, Impington, Cambridgeshire, CB24 9YS
the demolition of existing buildings comprising Anglia House, Kendal House inc. flats above, Regency House and Marble Store to rear and 1 Cambridge Road inc. flats above; and redevelopment of the side comprising 28 new- build residential units (Use Class C3) and associated parking, commercial units at ground floor level (Use Class E), two commercial parking spaces, and proposed new landscaping and public realm improvements to Cambridge Road
- Authority
- South Cambridgeshire District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Woodwards O
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- whether or not the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to overlooking to proposed flat 20, lack of private outdoor amenity space for proposed flat 19, and the amount and design of the proposed communal amenity space for all of the proposed flats
- the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1 Pepys Terrace, with regard to overlooking
- the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to on-street car parking, vehicular access design, and access to the proposed cycle store
- the effect of the proposal on surface water drainage and groundwater flooding
- whether or not the proposal would provide adequate facilities for the storage and collection of waste and refuse
What decided it
The excessive bulk and mass of the west elevation harming the character and appearance of the area, combined with sub-standard communal amenity space for future occupiers, outweighed the benefits of housing and commercial delivery.
The benefits of housing and commercial delivery on an allocated, accessible site were outweighed by the harm to character and appearance and the inadequate communal amenity space for future occupiers, so the proposal was found to conflict with the development plan as a whole
Framework references: 169
Plan policies cited: Policy E8, Policy E/8, Policy HQ1, Policy HIM01, Policy TI3, Policy HMI05, Policy CC8, Policy CC9
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.