Issue - meetings

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.