Decision

By unanimous vote in favour of the officer recommendation of refusal, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons:

i.               The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk and intensity of development, would represent an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal fails to achieve a high-quality and well-integrated design, resulting in a building that is disproportionately large in relation to its plot, appears visually incongruous within the surrounding street scene, and provides insufficient opportunities for landscaping and place-making. The development would be dominated by vehicular infrastructure, fails to provide a safe, attractive and legible pedestrian environment with adequate connectivity to public transport, and does not provide sufficient private or communal amenity space for future occupiers in accordance with the adopted design standards. Furthermore, the development would necessitate the loss of existing trees that contribute to the character and visual screening of the site, resulting in harm to local landscape character. The proposal also fails to provide satisfactory levels of car parking and does not demonstrate adequate provision for refuse storage, collection and servicing. Collectively, these deficiencies indicate that the site has been developed beyond its capacity and that the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation or a sustainable form of development.

For these reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policies HQ/1, NH/4, TI/2 and TI/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, paragraphs 115 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), the South Cambridgeshire Design Guide SPD (2010), and the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide (2026).

ii.              The proposed development has the potential to have a harmful effect on terrestrial Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and those Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites that they underpin. In the absence of an assessment of recreational pressure impacts, the proposal is contrary to policy NH/5 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) and paragraphs 187,193 and195 of the NPPF (2024); and

iii.             Delegated authority to officers to make minor amendments to the reasons for refusal.