Proposed Demolition of 13 Chesterton Road Cambridge


Monday, February 23rd, 2009. 2:36am

13 Chesterton Road
On the 4th of March 2009 Cambridge City Councillors on the planning committee are going to consider an application to demolish 13 Chesterton Road and replace it with a modern block of flats. The proposal has attracted lots of comments from people opposing the demolition of the existing building on aesthetic, historical and environmental grounds.

The applicants have submitted a structural report submitted prepared by Guy Dolby of PD Consulting Engineers, Cambridge which claims the existing building is structurally unsound and beyond economical repair. The report says that the recent fire in December 2008 did not make the situation substantially worse but states states that there has been “significant structural movement” and that “differential settlement has given rise to concern with regards to the long term stability of the structure” and recommends “demolition takes place as soon as practical”.

The structural report concludes:

In view of the degree of damage that has occurred to this property, in our opinion to ensure the long-term stability of this building would require such significant structural repair that this would not be a viable option on the grounds of cost and safety, and consequently would recommend that this building is demolished.

One of the main problems is that local residents, looking at the building from the outside with largely non-expert, but experienced eyes don’t believe the building is in such a poor state it needs to be demolished. I too find the structural report hard to believe.

Councillors (ward councillors and members of the planning committee I believe) made a site visit to inspect the interior of the property on the 19th of February. As far as I’m aware councillors will not have access to an independent structural report of their own, they will have had to have a look around and apply their own common sense and determine if they believe the professionals who have written the structural report submitted as part of the planning application. I do not think that councillors are in possession of enough independent information to be able to make a decision here. I would go further and say that residents don’t have enough information on which to base representations either. I would have thought that someone on the huge public-sector pay-roll within the City would have the qualifications and experience to offer an independent opinion on the structural state of the property; we might yet see that when the planning officer’s report is published but I would be surprised.

This decision is going to the council’s planning committee, rather than the North Area committee. This might be a matter of timing, or it may be due to the location of the building in a conservation area and on a boundary between areas. Given the strength of local feeling clearly this is one application which it would be good to see come to an Area Committee, held in the evening where more people will have an opportunity to participate in or listen to the debate. I hope that even if the decision is taken at the planning meeting our local ward councillors attend and put forward the concerns of residents.

Anne Garvey, a resident of Hertford Street objected to the demolition and asked the councillors to take heed of objections made to the previous application for planning permission on this site and not to expect everyone to re-submit them. This is a key problem with the planning process, that to comment and object at every stage is very time consuming and requires a careful eye to be kept on the progress of a development. We shouldn’t have a system where developers can wear down local people’s opposition to a proposal by resubmitting it over and over in the style of an Irish referendum.

In light of a hole in the roof which she claimed had been left unpatched for many years Anne Garvey also encouraged councilors to take into account the section of Planning Policy Guidance 15 (PPG15) which states: “in the rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair “.

The structural report states:

Vandalism resulting in damage to the rood covering has led to water ingress to the central part of the property in the area where most significant structural damage is present.

On the question of viability, another objector, [Name removed following request suggesting risk of harm], commented that the fact the existing owner might have paid too much for the property ought not be taken into consideration during the planning process.

Another objector, Alison Taylor, who describes herself as the Chair of the “Castle Community Action Group”, wrote that the adverse structural report submitted by the applicants is disputed by local architects.

13 Chesterton Road
While the new proposed flats are not anything approaching as characterful as the existing building on the site, they do appear to be a lot better than some of the recently built blocks in the city. The application states that the proposed building “will follow all the key characteristics of the Victorian buildings nearby”, however I do not think there is enough detail with in the application to assure me of that (bay windows?), the sections of the application on materials, and design emphasis are brief. Again I think there is a lack of information, and if councillors “don’t know” then I think they have to take the conservative course of action and vote against the proposals until they can have confidence in a proposal. One could argue that the aspect facing onto Hertford Street would be an improvement as there would be a reduction in the amount of blank wall, however the increased total size of the proposed new building will I think detract from that.

The applicants draw attention to the fact that: “In the Committee Report for the previous scheme the Planning Officer stated that the building’s demolition would not be opposed provided that the quality of the resubmitted building preserved or enhanced the character and appearance of the Conservation area”. This building is in a conservation area and the council’s own conservation officers have said that it makes an important contribution to that area. If this building is lost, then the whole area will be dominated by poor quality high density accommodation which does not sit well with the beautiful established residential streets in the area.
13 Chesterton Road

  • Why have some substantive trees on the site been cut down before the planning application has been considered?
  • Why are plans, or at least artists impressions, not made publicly available online (other than by me)? I have watched councillors who have not been into the council offices to look at the plans determine planning applications and complain about the lack of such information in their papers.
  • Why are only very near neighbours to a proposed development like this formally consulted when it would clearly be of interest to so many more – for example all residents of Hertford Street and Magrath Avenue ?
  • Why are all letters of support / objection sent to the council not made available online as they are submitted so others can build on or refute what they are saying?
  • Perhaps the lull in planning applications in the city, which is not being met with a reduction in staff levels in the planning department, will provide an opportunity for an overhaul of the council’s processes and communication.

The planning officers’ report is due to be published on the 24th of February, I intend to update this article in light of it.

See also:
Students in fight to save historic house – Cambridge News.
Accessibility of Cambridge City’s Planning Process
New Flats to be Built in a Garden in the Chesterton Conservation Area.

5 comments/updates on “Proposed Demolition of 13 Chesterton Road Cambridge

  1. Richard Article author

    The planning committee on the 4th of March 2009 decided not to approve the application.

    It was noted that councillors did not have access to an independent report on the structural state of the building available to them.

    The decision not to approve the application was not directly related to the request for permission to demolish, but was made on the basis councillors were not happy with the proposed new building.

  2. Richard Article author

    Again permission is being sought for: “Demolition of existing building and erection of twelve apartments with associated car and cycle parking and landscaping.”

    According to the council’s website the expiry date for neighbour consultations was the 6th of November, and the expiry date for “standard” consultations is the 13th. There is also a general expiry date of the 20th of November.

    http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?keyval=KRJY1TDX04X00&searchtype=PROPERTY&module=P3

    As is typical for Cambridge City Council no plans or details of the application are available online.

    I think that all unaddressed concerns raised by those commenting on the previous application should be reconsidered as if they had also been submitted in response to this application. People should not have to repeatedly object or support planning applications.

  3. Richard Article author

    Following the council’s decision to allow the demolition of the house in favour of a new-build block of flats a previous tenant of the house has written a letter to the Cambridge News:

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_letters/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=478213

    He points out our current councillors are failing to use their powers to compel people to improve their property when it becomes dangerous (Shop forecourts in the North of the City being another example).

  4. Richard Article author

    The chair of the planning committee has written to the Cambridge News defending his committee’s decision:

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_letters/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=481642

    The claim that the demolition is in-line with section 4/11 of the local plan; the section is made, that section states

    4/11 Conservation Areas Developments within, or which affect the setting of or impact on views into and out of Conservation Areas, will only be permitted if:

    a – they retain buildings, spaces, gardens, trees, hedges, boundaries and other site features which contribute positively to the character or appearance of the area;

    b – the design of any new building or the alteration of an existing one preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area by faithfully reflecting its context or providing a successful contrast with it; and

    c – a new or intensified use will not lead to traffic generation or other impacts which would adversely affect the Area’s character. Outline applications will not be accepted in Conservation Areas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.
Please consider saying where you are from eg. "Cambridge".
Required fields are marked *

*

Powered by WP Hashcash