Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed24 January 20243317663

303 Histon Road, CAMBRIDGE, Cambridgeshire, CB4 3NF

erection of 9 dwellings within 1 apartment building comprising studios, one and two bedroom apartments, together with landscaping, parking arrangements, bike and bin provision and associated infrastructure (following demolition of the existing dwelling)

Authority
Cambridge City Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Plenty B

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to its design and scale
  • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with respect to privacy, with regard to the flank window towards 305 Histon Road and noise effects in regard to the position of the ASHP
  • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to the provision of external space available to flats 3, 4, 7 and 8
  • The effect of the proposal on highway matters leading to whether the proposal would function well
  • Whether the proposal would suitably address flood related matters (Scheme A only)
  • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with respect to privacy, from the proposed balconies towards No 305 and properties of Tavistock Road (Scheme A only)
  • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to the size of flats 5 and 6 (Scheme A only)

What decided it

The substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area caused by the building's scale, mass and design, which conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and outweighs the moderate housing benefits and other limited benefits of the proposal.

The moderate housing benefits and limited environmental and economic benefits were outweighed by the substantial harm to character and appearance and (for Scheme A) overlooking harm, resulting in conflict with the development plan as a whole.

Plan policies cited: Policy 55, Policy 56, Policy 57, Policy 59, Policy 50, Policy 35, Policy 58, Policy 32, Policy 80

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.