Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: British Legion Hall - Hall. View directions
Contact: Martin Whelan Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from County Councillors Carter and Heathcock. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 16th July were approved as a true and accurate record. |
|
Matters and Actions Arising from the Minutes Minutes: There were no matters and actions arising from the minutes. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items
on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Head of Legal should
be sought before the meeting.
Minutes: Councillor Birtles declared a personal interest in item 8 and choose to abstain from the debate and voting on the item. |
|
Open Forum Minutes: There were no issues raised in the open forum. |
|
Southern Area Transport Corridor Funding PDF 37 KB To follow Minutes: The committee received a report from the
County Council Head of Transport, Infrastructure Policy & Funding regarding
South Area Transport Corridor Funding. The committee were provided with an
update on the projects suggested at the meeting in March, and an explanation of
the criteria used to score them. Amanda Taylor addressed the committee and
expressed support for the proposed lighting on the Guided Bus route. She
highlighted that with the support of her trade union, local residents and her
employer a petition had been raised with 233 signatures in support of the
project. Solar studs were welcomed, however, it was suggested that if lighting
columns were preferred a small trial should be undertaken to fully understand
the impact. Amanda Taylor also spoke in support of the Long Road Cycle Way
proposed improvements. A member of the public spoke in support of
the Long Road Cycle Way improvements, which were proposed in the report. It was
explained that the existing arrangements were dangerous and could result in an
accident or serious injury, and were inferior compared with the principal north
south arterial cycle routes. The County Council Officers welcomed the
support for the two projects, and agreed to look into whether lighting or studs
would offer best solution. It was also noted that the layout of Long Road, may
create certain restrictions on what can be achieved. The committee made the following comments on
the proposals i. Is
the £3m associated with the Leisure Park Bridge the full or pro-rata cost? It
was confirmed that this was the full estimated cost of the project, but it may
be possible to share the cost with East Area Committee. ii. Clarification
was requested on why the southbound bus stop on Brooklands Avenue was not
included? It was agreed to add this to the list of potential projects. iii. It
was noted that pot of money available could grow over next few years and
depended on growth levels being delivered. iv. There
was general support for agreeing to projects, 2.1 and 2.3-2.7 and further investigation
on the Leisure Park Bridge and Hauxton Road Bridge improvements. During discussion members expressed support
for a range of projects. v. Clarification
was requested on the scoring criteria, and how improvements to radial route
signage mitigated developed. Head of
Transport, Infrastructure Policy & Funding explained the scoring scheme and
how the signage project was designed to provide clarity, improve traffic flows
and reduce diversions. vi.
The committee
welcomed the proposals for Cherry Hinton High Street and agreed that that it
was currently unsafe. The Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors expressed concern that
a number of schemes that had been suggested had not appeared on the project
list. Following discussion the Ward Councillors agreed to re-supply a list of
those schemes to the County Council officers. The schemes included improvements
to the bus stop at Teversham Drift and the traffic lights at the Robin Hood
Pub. It was agreed to add this scheme to the list of potential projects. vii.
The inclusion
of a pedestrian crossing on Fendon Road was suggested. County Council officers
agreed to add the scheme to the list for assessment, but suggested that S106
funding may not be the most appropriate and depending on issues raised it may
be possible to progress the scheme through the road safety budget. viii. Clarification
was requested on whether the interest on the accumulated sums could be used to
fund additional projects. County Council officers confirmed that funding
collected from developments has to be used in line with Area Corridor Plan
approach and interest is taken into account, but that they would need to check
the specifics. However it was noted that the City Council with their own
contributions used the interest to off-set the effect of inflation. Resolved The
committee agreed to support projects 2.1 to 2.7 with the following exceptions i. 2.2
– Further work on the details was required before making a final recommendation
and a contribution from East Corridor Fund would also be required. ii. 2.7
– The scheme needed to be re-assessed before making a final recommendation. In response to a question regarding sewers,
the committee were advised that for issues relating the County Council
responsibilities the Whittlesford Depot was responsible. |
|
12/0834/FUL- 39 Long Road PDF 486 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The committee received a full planning
application for consideration for 39 Long Road to extend house to rear and side
including raising of roof ridge height by 300mm. The committee received representations from
Dr Merry in objection to the application, Mr Morrin in objection to the
application and Mr Cooper in support of the application. The objectors raised the following issues i. The
issues raised by the Planning Inspector had not been overcome ii. The
proposed screens were not defined and were effectively fences, which would have
the same effect of enclosure as walls. iii. The
need for the extension was also questioned particularly if the room layout was
re-configured. iv. Un-necessary
inclusion of certain windows v. The
possibility of trees being removed at a later date removing all protection The applicant spoke in support of the
applicant. Resolved (8 votes to 0) To amend the recommendations to insert a condition
preventing the use of the first floor terrace area, with the condition to read Notwithstanding
the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development, revised
layout plans and drawing elevations of the proposed extensions shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority showing: a) the
removal of the privacy fencing from around the first floor rear terrace b) the
removal of the first floor terrace storage area c) the amendment
of the design of the door opening so that it no longer leads onto the first
floor terrace with the provision of a juliet balcony or a non-projecting detail
as otherwise agreed. d) the
removal of the annotation showing a terrace. The first floor flat roof leading from the
bedroom one shall not be used as an external amenity area for occupants or
guests of the house at any time and shall function as a flat roofing structure
only. Resolved
(7
votes to 2) to approve the
application as per the committee report with the following additional
amendments to the conditions -An additional condition is recommended to ensure
the privacy of adjacent residents: 4: The following
shall be installed prior to the use of the respective bedrooms and shall be
retained as such thereafter: -Bedroom 1
west-facing window at first floor level shall be obscure glazed to a minimum
level of obscurity to conform to Pilkington Glass level 3 or equivalent and
shall have restrictors to ensure that the window cannot be opened more than 45
degrees beyond the plane of the adjacent wall. -Bedroom 1
east-facing lightwell at first floor level shall be obscure glazed to a minimum
level of obscurity to conform to Pilkington Glass level 3 or equivalent and
shall be fixed shut. -Bedroom 4
north-facing window at second floor level privacy hood. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity
(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/14). -An additional condition is recommended in relation
to the protection of trees: 5: No development,
including demolition, shall commence on site until the following details have
been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority: (a) A plan showing the location of, and
allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a
stem with a diameter measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground
level, exceeding 75mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown
spread of each retained tree; (b) details of the species, diameter
(measured in accordance with paragraph (a) above), and the approximate height,
and an assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each
retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to
which paragraphs (c) and (d) apply; (c) details of any proposed topping or
lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree on land adjacent to the site; (d) details of any proposed alterations in
existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation, within
the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the
site within a distance from any
retained tree, or any tree on land adjacent to the site, equivalent to half the
height of that tree; (e) details of the specification and
position of fencing [and of any other measures to be taken] for the protection
of any retained tree from damage during the course of development. (f) details of any trees proposed for
removal. In the condition
retained tree means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with
the plan referred to in paragraph (a) above. Reason: To safeguard and ensure the protection of
those existing trees which are to be retained on or adjacent to the site. (East
of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12
and 4/4). The committee
approved the application for the following reasons. 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, 3/7 and 3/14 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. |
|
12/0763/FUL - 51A Hartington Grove PDF 364 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The committee received an application for
51a Hartington Grove for the demolition of existing two bedroom house and
single garage and construction of 3 bedroom 1 3/4 storey house, along with one
storey lodge, bin and cycle store. The Principal Planning Officer verbally
updated condition 3 to read Prior to the installation of any intended air source heat
pump, a scheme for the insulation of the plant in order to minimise the level
of noise emanating from the proposed air source heat pump shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme as
approved shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is
commenced. Resolved (Unanimously) to approve the application by 8 votes to 0, subject to an
amendment to condition 3 for the following reasons. 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: SS1,H1,T14,ENV7 and WM6 Cambridge Local
Plan (2006):3/1,3/4,3/7,3/12,4/4,4/13,5/1,8/2,8/6,8/10 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. |
|
10/0035/FUL - Outside 108, 110, 112, And 122 High Street, Cherry Hinton PDF 490 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The committee received an application for
the retrospective approval of vehicle crossing and access outside 108, 110,
112, and 122 High Street Cherry Hinton, Cambridge. Resolved (Unanimously) to approve the application for
the following reasons 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: policy ENV7 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): policies 3/1, 3/4,
3/7, 3/11 and 8/2 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. |