objection letter - St Colettes Posted:16/02/2010 15:44:08
Glisson Road / Tenison Road Area Residents Association Chair Barbara Bell 23 Glisson Road, Vice Chair - Simon Szreter 18 Tenison Ave, Secretary - Frank Gawthrop 30 Lyndewode Road, Treasurer - Bronwen Loder 39 Glisson Road
23.01.10
Mr. Tony Collins Planning Officer The Guildhall Cambridge
Dear Mr. Collins
Planning application for former St Colettes School, Tenison Road 09/1142/FUL The Residents Association comments:
Separation distance and loss of privacy - in our view the proposed housing is sited too close to the rear of properties in Tenison Avenue. We refer to adopted policy 3/10 of the local plan and consider the proposed plan fails to conform to the above policy “Residential development within the garden area or curtilage of existing properties will not be permitted if it will have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy, loss of light, an overbearing sense of enclosure and the generation of unreasonable levels of traffic or noise nuisance”
Conservation Areas and trees Tenison Avenue lies within the Central Cambridge Conservation area and we would specifically object to the loss of trees on the site as outlined in policy 4/11.
“Developments within, or which affect the setting of or impact on views into and out of Conservation Areas, will only be permitted if: they retain buildings, spaces, gardens, trees, hedges, boundaries and other site features which contribute positively to the character or appearance of the area” etc etc.
Community facilities. We are not satisfied that the developer has adequately demonstrated compliance with Policy 5/11 of the Local Plan
“The redevelopment of school sites for other uses will be permitted only if it can be demonstrated that they are not required in the longer term for continued education use.”
Last year the Council agreed the Cb1 Station Development containing a total of 331 flats of which 162 will have two bedrooms and 20 three bedrooms. In 2006 they approved 156 flats on the site of the Botanic House office by the war memorial at the top of Station Road. Of these 68 are two bedroom and 26 three bedroom units. These agreed developments have a substantial capacity for family accommodation and since the local schools, St Paul’s and St Matthew’s, are heavily oversubscribed the developer should in our view be demonstrating that the County Council is not interested in the St Colettes site.
In addition to state schools there is a demand from the Independent sector. In the last three years two new schools have opened in Cambridge, the International School in Cherry Hinton Road and the Steiner School in Fulbourn. There maybe other potential users who might come forward if the site were marketed for continued educational use. Again, has the developer demonstrated this is not the case?
Parking As an area we have some experience of new developments which reflect the City Councils’ desire to restrict parking to one space per dwelling, or less, with limited visitor parking.
In Ravensworth Gardens this policy has failed. The visitor space parking has now been restricted with bollards to prevent permanent parking, a system that only operates as there is now agreement for the site to be properly managed by an external company. If shared visitor parking is to be operated successfully on the St Colettes site a similar arrangement will need to be agreed.
With regard to on street parking the residents of Ravensworth Gardens have successfully petitioned to allow pay and display and limited on street parking within the development, demonstrating that the single car per house policy is difficult to sustain. They have also lobbied in an attempt to obtain the right to obtain permits to the existing overloaded Tenison Road Area Residents Parking scheme. This proposal was only prevented by the fact that prior to construction the County Council advertised and implemented a Traffic Regulation Order that specifically excluded the new housing from the existing scheme. Should the City Council seek to approve this current plan we would seek from the Planning Dept an assurance that the developer would be required to fund a similar TRO.
I trust the above comments are of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Frank Gawthrop Secretary.
Cc Barbara Bell – Chair Simon Szreter – Vice Chair
