Agenda and minutes

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of 32-38 Station Road and the construction of two new office buildings comprising 7279 sqm of office floorspace (class B1) for 50 Station Road and 8621 sqm of office floorspace (class B1) and 271 sqm of retail/cafe space (class A1/A3) for 60 Station Road as a phased development, including ancillary accommodation/facilities with an additional single level basement to both buildings and up to 76 car parking spaces, with associated plant, up to 576 internal and external cycle parking spaces, realignment of the northern part of the southern access road, and hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Clifton.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

(i)             Mr Clifton was speaking on behalf of several resident associations.

(ii)            Referred to the 4 reasons for refusal given by Planning Committee when it last considered the 32 – 38 Station Road development. Mr Clifton felt these had not been addressed:

·       Massing – Referred to paragraph 8.10 of the Officer’s report and agreed with Officer comments. Mr Clifton suggested that the Microsoft building in Station Road was a good example of building design, whereas the 32 – 38 Station Road development design was uninteresting.

·       Parking – Expressed concern regarding provision; and felt existing issues in the area would be exacerbated by the development.

·       Suggested there was insufficient public benefit from the demolition of 32 – 38 Station Road. Mr Clifton referred to the Chief Executive of Brookgate’s comments listed on the Cambridge News website.

·       Transport mitigation – Queried if this had been addressed.

(iii)          Suggested the application should be refused.

 

Mr Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee discussed items 12/1556/FUL and 12/1553/CAC jointly, but voted on them separately.

 

The Committee adjourned 10:50 am to 11:00 am whilst Councillor Brown sought legal advice on a potentialinterest.

 

Councillor Brown withdrew from the discussion for items 12/1556/FUL and 12/1553/CAC at 11:00 am and did not participate in the decision making.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1) to refuse the application  for the following reason:

 

1.       The proposed building by virtue of its overall scale and massing would have an unacceptably dominant impact on the Station Road frontage to the detriment of the streetscene and the Conservation Area contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge local Plan 2006.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1) to refuse the application for the following reason:

 

2.       The development fails to make adequate provision for car parking which would be likely to result in overspill parking into nearby residential areas, which would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents of those areas. The development is therefore contrary to policy 8/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

Resolved (by 2 votes to 1) to refuse the application  for the following reasons:

 

3.       The public benefit arising from the development fails to provide sufficient justification for the demolition of Buildings of Local Interest, which are recognised as heritage assets. The development is therefore contrary to policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1) to refuse the application  for the following reasons:

 

4.       The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for transport mitigation measures/infrastructure provision, mitigation of potential for overspill parking, the funding and agreement of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator, public art, relocation of a community facility, restriction on occupation of offices and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 5/11, 7/2, 8/3, 9/9 and 10/1. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1, P9/8 and P9/9 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010 and the Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2002.

The Committee received an application for Conservation Area Consent.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of 32-38 Station Road.

 

The Committee had already received representations in objection and support of application 12/1553/CAC under application 12/1556/FUL (minute item 13/16/Plana).

 

The Committee discussed items 12/1556/FUL and 12/1553/CAC jointly, but voted on them separately.

 

Councillor Brown withdrew from the discussion for items 12/1552/FUL and 12/1553/CAC at 11:00 am and did not participate in the decision making.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 - unanimously) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 - unanimously) to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed demolition is contrary to policies 4/11 and 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 in that in the absence of an approved redevelopment scheme that has a contract for redevelopment and which preserves and enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area by faithfully reflecting its context or providing a contrast with it, the demolition of the buildings would result in the loss of a heritage asset in the form of Buildings of Local Interest which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

2        The public benefit from the development fails to provide sufficient justification for the demolition of Buildings of Local Interest, which are recognised as heritage assets. The development is therefore contrary to policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

If the Applicant were to request an Appeal Hearing against the Committee decision, the Head of Planning Services suggested that one of the Councillors might be asked attend an as a Council witness on reasons for the decision.

 

The Head of Planning Services undertook to liaise with Members post Committee.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 8 x 1 bed dwellings with associated cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and refuse storage, following the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage

 

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

·       Mr Beall

·       Ms Martin

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

(i)             The proposed development represents an over development of what is a small, awkwardly shaped, visible and central site in a residential neighbourhood.

(ii)            Planning Committee considered planning applications in 2012 in respect of new residential properties to be built in the rear gardens of Histon Road properties.  Planning Committee supported residents’ objections to preserve the character of the neighbourhood and rejected a scheme for a three storey property, only granting permission when the application was revised to a property on a smaller scale and over two storeys only.  Residents of Benson Place asked the Planning Committee to determine this application on the same logic to preserve existing character.

(iii)          Benson Place is part of Castle Ward. Properties in Castle were predominantly traditional family residencies. The application proposed sole occupancy residences. This would be detrimental to the character of the street.

(iv)         The application was an over-development of site.

(v)           Expressed concerns regarding the development being proposed as car free and queried if this would be enforceable. Suggested existing parking issues in the area would be exacerbated by the development.

(vi)         1 Benson Place is a small, awkwardly shaped triangular site in a central location. The proposal was not appropriate for a site the size of 1 Benson Place.

(vii)        Suggested the footprint of the site exceeds the land owned by the developer.

(viii)      Residents of Benson Place welcomed development of 1 Benson Place, which they felt had been left to deteriorate by the developer. However, they wanted an appropriate design for the street and site in keeping with the existing character of the existing two storey Victorian and 1930 properties.

 

Mr Belton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the Council’s standard considerate construction condition be added as an informative (not a condition).

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda, and with one additional informative for construction traffic arrangements to be agreed.

 

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:

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/4, 3/6, 3/7, 3/10, 3/11, 3/12, 4/4, 4/10, 4/11, 5/1, 8/2, 8/6, 10/1.

 

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.

 

3.       In reaching this decision the local planning authority has acted on guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 186 and 187. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to bring forward a high quality development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

 

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 Stuart withdrew from the meeting and Councillor Blencowe took the Chair.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 13 no. dwellings (following demolition of no. 235 Milton Road.

 

The Planning Officer brought the report up to date with reference to a typographical error on P230 paragraph 8.85 that listed primary education as £42,000 when the figure should be £16,200.

 

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

·       Mr Brown

·       Mr Baxter

·       Mr Taylor

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

(i)             Suggested the application would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents. Felt the proposal was contrary to Local Plan policies 3/4, 3/10, 3/11 and 3/12.

(ii)            Raised concern regarding:

·       Site density.

·       Height of application.

·       Overlooking from development.

·       Impact of proposed access road on safety of cycle way and existing neighbours’ access.

·       Impact of development on character of area.

(iii)          Referred to Council Landscape Team comments on development, specifically the dwellings creating a sense of enclosure.

(iv)         Residents did not object to development in principle, they asked that Committee apply the same conditions for the back garden development as others in the area.

 

Councillor Kevin Price (Ward Councillor for Kings Hedges) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

(i)             Expressed concern regarding loss of trees as a result of the development.

(ii)            Suggested the development would lead to a sense of enclosure.

 

Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as set out in the planning officer’s report to Committee, and subject to the additional conditions/informatives set out on the Amendment sheet and below:

 

Additional conditions in response to issues raised by consultees

 

Replacement Planting:

 

If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree or shrub planted as a replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by the proper maintenance of existing and/or new landscape features. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 3/11)

 

Tree Protection:

 

No work shall start on the application site (including soil stripping, preconstruction delivery of equipment or materials, the creation of site accesses, positioning of site huts) until a Tree Protection Plan, as defined in BS 5837:2005 "Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations", containing the following Arboricultural Method Statements/specifications has first been submitted and agreed to, in writing, by the Council's Principal Arboricultural Officer:

 

-- Arboricultural method statements for the precise location and erection of tree protection barriers and ground protection for all trees retained on, and adjacent to, the site, in order to establish Root Protection Areas and construction exclusion zones;

 

-- Arboricultural method statements for any special engineering operations within Root Protection Areas;

 

-- Arboricultural method statements for root pruning and root barrier installation; including specifications for root-barrier material; and root-soil back-fill;

 

-- Arboricultural method statements for the amelioration of the rhizosphere within the Root Protection Areas comprising of de-compaction (Terravention) and soil inoculation with spore derived mycorrhizae and bioactivators; soil tilthing utilising air-spade technology; irrigation; and mulching where appropriate;

 

-- Arboricultural method statement for any development facilitation pruning.

 

Development shall take place thereafter only in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan.

 

Reason: To protect the health and welfare of trees of amenity interest. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/11, 3/12 and 4/4).

 

Appointment of arboricultural consultant:

 

No work shall start on the application site (including soil stripping, preconstruction delivery of equipment or materials, the creation of site accesses, positioning of site huts) until all the following have taken place:

 

- The appointment, by the developer, of a competent arboriculturalist for the development, who shall monitor, record and confirm the implementation and maintenance of tree protection measures as set out in the conditions of the planning permission.

 

- A pre-construction site meeting between the site agent, the developers chosen arboriculturalist, and the Council's delegated Arboricultural Officer.

 

- All development facilitation pruning, where required, has been completed in accordance with BS 3998:1989.

 

- All tree protection barriers and ground protection measures, which must be in accord with BS 5837:2005 clause 9 - "The construction exclusion zone: barriers and ground protection", have been installed to the satisfaction of the Council's delegated Arboricultural Officer.

 

- All Arboricultural works shall be carried out by a competent tree contractor, proficient in both root-zone and aerial arboricultural work and shall follow strictly the agreed method statements and specifications.

 

Reason: To protect the health and welfare of trees of amenity interest. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/11, 3/12 and 4/4).

 

Archaeology:

 

No development shall commence in relation to the residential accommodation (Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987) until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, within that part of the site, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate archaeological investigation of the site has been implemented before development commences. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/9)

 

Ecology:

 

Prior to the commencement of development details of the type of bat and bird boxes including site plan showing their precise location shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bat and bird box details shall be implement in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To provide bio-diversity enhancement on the site (Cambridge Local Plan policy 4/3)

 

Renewable energy:

 

No development shall take place until full details (including ongoing maintenance schedules) of the selected renewable energy strategy have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation, and shall be maintained in place thereafter.

 

Reason: To reduce carbon emissions (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/16)

 

Road marking:

 

No development shall take place until full details of the road markings at the junction of the access with Milton Road have been to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation of any dwelling, and shall be maintained in place thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure safe and convenient circulation around the site. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/11 and 3/12)

 

External lighting:

 

Details of any proposed external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted commences.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/11 and 4/15)

 

Amendments to Recommendation to address the fact that the s106 Agreement has not yet been completed

 

1.       APPROVE subject to the satisfactory completion of the s106 agreement by 30 June 2013 and subject to the following conditions and reasons for approval:

 

2.       Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by 30 June 2013, or if Committee determine that the application be refused against officer recommendation of approval, it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason(s):

 

The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, education and life-long learning facilities, transport mitigation measures, public art, waste facilities, and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/14, 8/3.

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, the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010, the Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2003, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012

 

3.       In the event that the application is refused, and an Appeal is lodged against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority is sought to allow officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development

 

Revised S106 package:

 

Contributions to include RECAP contribution totaling £2,280

 

The County Council has requested a new schedule to be included in the S106, which requires the developer to take full responsibility of the future maintenance and upkeep of the shared surface and private road, as the road layout is not to an adoptable standard.  The applicant has agreed to maintain the shared surface and road as a private road, which future occupiers will be aware made of. The precise wording for this schedule needs to be agreed with relevant departments.

 

Reasons for Approval

 

1.       This development has been approved subject to conditions and the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: SS1 and ENV7

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/4, 3/10, 3/12 and 5/1

 

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.

 

3.       In reaching this decision the local planning authority has acted on guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 186 and 187. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to bring forward a high quality development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

 

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the proposed new building for University Data Centre.

 

Mr Stacey (Applicant’s Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 - unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as set out in the officer’s report to the Committee.

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

3.       In reaching this decision the local planning authority has acted on guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraphs 186 and 187. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to bring forward a high quality development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

 

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.

On 19 September 2012 Planning Committee considered an application (11/1442/FUL) to allow the change of use of Gibson House, 57-61 Burleigh Street on the upper three floors only from office use B1(a) to office and teaching (B1(a) and D1) in order to allow the applicant, EC Language School to occupy the premises.

 

Within the Planning Officer’s report presented at the September Committee, paragraphs 8.49 and 8.50 recommended that the S106 Agreement would need to address two elements that had been identified in the assessment of the application. These were the capping of student weeks across the two retained sites, Guildhall Chambers and Gibson House and that the applicant must relinquish its lease of 26-29 Sidney Street. The Committee resolved to approve the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission for the application subject to completion of an S106 Agreement containing the obligations noted within paragraphs 8.49 and 8.50 of the Planning Officer’s report.

 

Since the Committee meeting, the Applicant’s have advised officers that Sidney Sussex College will not allow them to relinquish their lease. Officers consider that it would not constitute best practice to include an obligation in a S106 Agreement which the Applicant has stated it will not be able to comply with. For this reason the application remains undetermined, pending the completion of a S106 Agreement. The application was brought back to Committee for further consideration.

 

The Officer’s report sought approval:

 

(i)             For Members to agree an amendment to the obligations to be secured by the S106 Agreement. Specifically to approve alterations to the originally proposed wording of the S106 Agreement in order to allow the applicant (leaseholder) to sub-let the premises at 26-29 Sidney Street to another office occupier, in accordance with its use class (B1 (a)), until such time that the freeholder, Sidney Sussex College, allows the applicant to relinquish their lease.

(ii)            That Members allow an extension of time for the completion of the S106 Agreement until 30th April 2013.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 - unanimously) to accept the officer recommendations:

 

(i)             To agree an amendment to the obligations to be secured by the S106 Agreement.

(ii)            To allow an extension of time for the completion of the S106 Agreement until 30th April 2013.