Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for extension of the existing pontoon.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the Company Secretary for Beaufort Place.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          The punting station was granted by St John’s College to the county council as a public punting station and this application would prevent the location being used as a community facility, cementing its use as a commercial centre.

     ii.          The punting operation of 28 punts continues through 365 days per year, from early morning to late at night, up to 2am in summer months. The punting companies actively encouraged the use of punts for stag parties and similar uses, drunken behaviour linked to this had a dramatic detrimental effect on the peace and enjoyment of residents.

   iii.          There had been a lack of consideration and consultation with the residents of Beaufort Place over a change of use from what was intended to be a small public punting station to a commercial centre similar to a nightclub or hospitality event.

Ms Wynne from Rutherford’s Punting Company (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

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

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

Members proposed draft ‘minded to’ reasons for refusal which were re-worded by Officers into a format for the minutes. Members resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to accept both reasons for ‘minded to’ refusal and the wording therein.

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

      i.          By virtue of the scale of the proposed extension to the pontoon, the scissor lift and associated works, the development would increase the presence and urbanise the appearance of the existing facility. In doing so, it would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings, and would also harm the special landscape qualities of the River Cam and Protected Open Space. Whilst the works are intended to improve accessibility to this punting operation and improve loading and unloading arrangements, these benefits are considered to be predominantly confined to users of the punt operation and to be of limited wider public benefit. As such, they do not outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the heritage assets, as set out in Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 7, 55, 61, 65 and 67 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

     ii.          The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not give rise to an intensification in the use of the pontoon and associated pedestrian activity in this area of Jesus Green, which already suffers from pedestrian congestion. As such, the proposal may impede the free flow of pedestrian movement, contrary to Policies 56, 65 and 80 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018, and to Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.