Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
93 19/0964/FUL - 1 Regent Street PDF 117 KB
Minutes:
Councillor Thornburrow left the table to speak to
the Committee as a Ward Member; she took no part in the determination of the
application.
The Committee received an application for full
planning permission.
The application sought
approval for proposed low carbon refurbishment works to the building including
replacement passivhaus windows, the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV)
panels, a disabled entrance ramp and associated works.
The Senior Planning Officer
presented his report to the Committee.
John French (Applicant)
addressed the Committee in support of the application.
Councillor
Bick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
He had previously spoken in strong
defence of the Conservation Area however this application concerned an
important trade-off between conservation area and climate change
considerations.
ii.
He noted the test of ‘less than
substantial harm to the Conservation Area’ but it was a judgement whether any
harm to the Conservation Area is outweighed by any public benefit brought about
by the development.
iii.
Took issue with the ‘public
benefit’ having to achieve a technical standard.
iv.
The applicant was trying to do as
much as they could to reduce their carbon footprint.
v.
The Council had declared a climate
emergency therefore change was required.
vi.
The City Centre remained
functionally attractive and embraced change taking into consideration the
City’s role as a centre for technology.
vii.
On balance he could accept a
decision to approve this application.
viii.
Planning policy used the language
‘harm’ however this could be better described as ‘differences’.
ix.
The building will still be in situ
and could arguably look refreshed and be a more pleasant place in which to
work.
x.
Noted the application was a
delicate balance for the Committee to determine.
xi.
Commented that local planning
policy guidance was required in light of the climate emergency
declaration.
Councillor Thornburrow
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Pointed out that in this instance
the heritage asset was the Conservation Area and not Entopia House of itself.
This proposal would not cause harm to the Conservation Area although if one
came to the view that it would, then surely the public benefits of the scheme
would outweigh such harm.
ii.
Refusal of the application would
be a step backwards following the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency.
iii.
The application was not solely
about improving the building thermally because there were other improvements.
iv.
The Council, visitors to the city
and its residents could learn about sustainable improvements to buildings
directly as a result of this exemplar scheme which would benefit all.
v.
Window typology was not mentioned
in the Conservation Area Appraisal, if it was important then it would have been
included within it.
vi.
The existing windows were not the
original windows but a poor replacement.
The replacement windows proposed in the application would not harm the
Conservation Area.
vii.
The Council needed to consider the
justification of the application in terms of the public benefit. The proposed
windows would address climate emergency considerations.
viii.
Asked the Committee to approve the
application. It would not damage the street scene.
The Committee:
Both the Delivery Manager
Development Management and the Senior Planning Officer responded to the
Committee’s queries concerning the proposal and its impact and the “harm” test
addressed in the report and the Senior Planning Officer’s presentation. The
Committee concluded by 3 votes to 2 that this proposal would not in their view
cause “harm” to the Conservation Area. Additionally, the Committee was mindful
of the perceptible public benefits in terms of an exemplar scheme achieving
carbon reduction and by taking positive action relative to the Council’s
declaration of a climate emergency as material considerations to weigh in the
planning balance.
The Chair brought closure
to the debate and took the Committee to the vote on the Officer’s
recommendation to refuse the application which was lost by 2 votes to 3.
The
Committee then discussed the reason for approving the application. Two members
found no harm and one found harm but felt the public benefit outweighed the
harm. Committee then resolved (by 2 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions) that the reason for granting planning permission
contrary to the Officer recommendation is:
i.
There was
no “harm” to Heritage Interests - notably the character and appearance of the
conservation area - arising from the proposals and the development would give
rise to public benefit comprising the significant improvement to the
environmental performance of an existing building.
The
Chair called a short break and when the meeting reconvened Councillor Baigent
did not return to the meeting.
The
Principal Planning Officer read through the following conditions which would
attach to the planning permission:
1. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In
accordance with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004).
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved plans as listed on this decision
notice.
Reason: In the interests of good planning, for the
avoidance of doubt and to facilitate any future application to the Local
Planning Authority under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, the development, hereby permitted, shall be
constructed in accordance with the materials specified within the application
form and on the approved plans
Reason: To
ensure that the external appearance of the development does not detract from
the character and appearance of the Conservation area. (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 policies 55, 57 and 61)
4.
No new windows shall be constructed in the
existing building, nor existing windows altered until drawings at a scale of
1:10 of details of new or altered sills, lintels, jambs, transoms, and mullions
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To
avoid harm to the special interest of the Conservation Area. (Cambridge Local
Plan 2018, policy 61)
5.
BREEAM Condition 1 – Design Stage
Certification
Within 6
months of commencement of development, a BRE issued Design Stage Certificate
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that BREEAM
‘outstanding’ as a minimum will be met.
Where the interim certificate shows a shortfall in credits for BREEAM
‘outstanding’, a statement shall be submitted identifying how the shortfall
will be addressed. In the event that
such a rating is replaced by a comparable national measure of sustainability
for building design, the equivalent level of measure shall be applicable to the
proposed development.
Reason: In
the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting principles of
sustainable construction and efficient use of buildings (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 Policy 28).
Resolved (by 3 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve the conditions to be attached to the planning
permission now granted by the Committee.