Agenda and minutes

Councillor Marchant-Daisley.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2011.

Minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2011 will be approved at a future meeting.

The minutes of the 16 November 2011 meetings were approved and signed as a correct record.

Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting.

The committee received a reserved matters application.

The application sought approval for phase 1 of the West Cambridge Sports Centre pursuant to outline approval C/97/0961/OP.

The committee received a representation in objection to the application from the following:

·        Mrs Meeks

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                Concern over visual impact of building and its impact on views from the green belt.

(ii)              Concern over building height, as the roof may be visible over the tree line.

(iii)            Concern over possible light pollution.

(iv)            Queried if the design responded to context (ie fitted in with its neighbours).

(v)              Welcomed the provision of sport facilities, but hoped to avoid a building design that clashed with its surroundings.

Ms Pearce (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda.

Reasons for Approval

1.      This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

East of England plan 2008: ENV7

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 4/1, 4/4, 4/13, 4/15, 4/16, 6/2, 7/6, 8/2, 8/4, 8/10, 8/16, 8/18.

2.      The decision has been made having had regard to all other material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.

These reasons for approval can be a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision please see the officer report online at www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

Councillor Dryden withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

The committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for construction of three new buildings within Use Class D1 (5044 sqm) for non-residential educational and training use, following demolition of all buildings on site except the Ragged School.

The committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Mrs Rosenstiel

·        Ms Kaminga

The representations covered the following issues:

(i)                Welcomed redevelopment of the site in principle, and ARU’s willingness to work with resident associations.

(ii)              Concern over impact of application on the Conservation Area. Referred to Local Plan Policies 3/4, 3/12 and 4/11.

(iii)            Concern over form, mass and bulk of phase 3 building suggesting these did not respond to context.

(iv)            Asked for the phase 3 building to be reduced from 3 storeys to 2.

(v)              Asked if different planning phases could be considered separately, so that residents could comment on each in turn, and request alterations as they deemed appropriate.

(vi)            Suggested that existing traffic flow, safety and parking issues would be exacerbated by the development.

(vii)          The site did not have a Green Travel Plan.

Mrs Lynam (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed development, by virtue of the visually overbearing and enclosing impact that would result to the Brunswick Nursery School, would have an adverse impact on the level of amenity that the staff and pupils of that facility could reasonably expect to enjoy. In so doing the development fails to respond successfully to its context and would not have a positive effect on its setting.  The development is therefore contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

2.      The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for transport mitigation measures, public realm improvements, public art and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/5, 5/14, 8/3 and 10/1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010.

Resolved (unanimously) that delegated authority granted to officers to complete the necessary s106 Agreement in the event of an appeal.

Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed that Local Plan Policy 4/11 should be given as a reason for refusal. The Committee resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to reject this reason for refusal.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to defer this agenda item to a future Planning Committee meeting.

The committee received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 19/2011 that related to a tree at 25 Shelford Road.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.

The committee received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications Tree Preservation Order numbers 18/2011 and 20/2011 provisionally protecting trees at 8 and 12 Lyndewode Road.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPOs that were the subject of the application.

The committee received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 23/2011 that relates to a 34 Hardwick Street.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.

The committee received an application to fell a Copper Beech in the rear Garden of 102 Richmond Road protected by Tree Preservation Order number 09/11.

The committee received a written representation in objection to the application from the following:

·        Ms Johnson and Mr Jordan

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                The Objectors had hoped that the application to fell the beech tree in their garden at 102 Richmond Road would be withdrawn, as 149 Histon Road has been bought for redevelopment.

(ii)              The tree in 102 Richmond Road  was circa 50 years old, as was the bungalow at 149 Histon Road. Objectors felt the bungalow had shallow foundations in a poor state of repair, plus a large garden.

(iii)            The site of 149 Histon Road was not on Histon Road, but served by a long access from Histon Road. The site was likely to be a valuable redevelopment site.

(iv)            The tree provided considerable amenity both to the Objectors and to the wider neighbourhood.

(v)              There was no history of any dispute about the tree with the Objector’s neighbour, Mr Mitchell who had lived at 149 Histon Road; before their move to Richmond Road in 1990. The executors of Mr Mitchell’s estate instituted the claim that the beech tree had caused the subsidence at 149 Histon Road, though this had never been reported as an issue over the preceding 21 years the Objectors had lived there.

(vi)            The application to cut down the mature beech tree was from Oriel Services, on behalf of Fortis Insurance, the insurers for Mr Mitchell of 149 Histon Road.

(vii)          The Objectors disputed that the beech was responsible for the subsidence at the bungalow due to the results of a structural analysis they had commissioned.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to accept the officer recommendation and grant consent for the tree works on condition that a replacement was planted.