Items
| No. |
Item |
10/17/SAC |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were recorded from City Councillor Amanda
Taylor and County Councillors Carter, Heathcock and Shepherd.
|
10/18/SAC |
Declaration of Interest
Minutes:
10/21/SAC - Cllr Newbold declared a personal interest as
Secretary of Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall.
10/21/SAC - Cllr Dryden declared a personal interest as a
member of the committee of Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall.
10/25/SAC - (Planning Application – 10/0171/ADV) Cllr
Sanders declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a mortgage holder with
the Cambridge Building Society.
|
10/19/SAC |
Minutes of the meeting held 11th March 2010  PDF 169 KB
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 11th March 2010
were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
|
10/20/SAC |
Open Forum
Members of the public are invited to ask any question, or
make a statement on any matter related to their local area covered by the City
Council Wards for this Area Committee. The Forum will last up to 30 minutes,
but may be extended at the Chair’s discretion. The Chair may also time limit
speakers to ensure as many are accommodated as practicable.
Minutes:
There were no questions in the open forum.
|
10/21/SAC |
Cherry Hinton Hall Improvement PDF 39 KB
Report from the Head of Active Communities – Debbie Kaye
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Green Open Spaces Manager and Green Open Spaces Officer
introduced the report seeking approval to consult on the master plan for the re-development
of Cherry Hinton Hall.
Mr Andrew Varley addressed the committee on behalf of a collective
seeking to develop a City Farm within the city, and requested that the committee
consider the inclusion of a City Farm option within the consultation process. The
Green Open Spaces Manager confirmed that the City Council were keen to assist with
the proposals, but that some difficulties may arise because it hadn’t previously
been identified as a potential option for the site. Cllr Newbold advised that
the consultation to be undertaken by the Friends of Cherry Hinton would include
a City Farm option.
Mr Varley asked a supplementary question seeking clarification
on the relationship between the consultation processes being undertaken by the
Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall and the City Council. The Green Open Spaces Manager
advised that the Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall would be consulting with their membership,
and that the City Council would be consulting with the wider public. It was further
explained that at the conclusion of the consultation process the City Council
and the Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall would jointly consider the responses.
The committee expressed thanks to the officers and Robert Miles
Associates for the excellent work undertaken to date. The committee agreed that
the outputs of the consultation could go directly to Community Services Scrutiny
Committee without further consultation with the South Area Committee.
The committee Resolved to
a) Agreed the proposals and
timescales as laid out within this report, and
b) Instructed officers to
proceed with wider public consultation on the Masterplan.
|
10/22/SAC |
Planning
|
10/23/SAC |
10/0201/FUL - 2A Scotsdowne Road PDF 109 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
a.
|
10/0201/FUL
|
|
Site
|
2A Scotsdowne Road
|
|
Proposal
|
Erection
of 3no 2bed terrace dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow.
|
|
Recommendation
|
APPROVE
|
|
Public Speakers:
|
Mr William Norfolk – Objector
|
|
Decision:
|
REFUSED (against Officer recommendation)
by 4 votes to 3 votes on the Chairs casting vote, on the basis that the
proposal was out of context and therefore contrary to Local Plan policy 3/4.
Committee heard the criticisms of neighbours about the proposal,
which was considered to be out of keeping, likely to cause traffic and
parking issues and to constitute overdevelopment; and the views of the
officer who expanded on why the proposal related appropriately to the
buildings opposite and those in Alpha Terrace. Having debated the issues for some time Committee took the view
that the site was part of the Scotsdowne Road and the bungalows and
semi-detached houses in that road and not closely enough related to the
buildings opposite and in Alpha Terrace, and was therefore out of context. On that basis only the application was
refused
Reason The
introduction of the proposed terrace of three, 2-bedroom houses onto this
site, where the bungalow 2A Scotsdowne Road currently stands, is unacceptable
because such a built form is entirely alien to the character of Scotsdowne
Road of which 2A is a part. A
terraced form here cannot be seen to have drawn inspiration from the key
characteristics of Scotsdowne Road, which is an essentially suburban street
of detached bungalows and semi-detached houses. The development will not therefore be well integrated with the
locality or contextually appropriate.
For these reasons the proposal is in conflict with policy ENV7 of the
East of England Plan (2008), and policy 3/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).
|
|
10/24/SAC |
10/0215/FUL - 39 Shelford Road PDF 133 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
b.
|
10/0215/FUL
|
|
Site
|
39 Shelford Road
|
|
Proposal
|
Erection of 3 four-bed dwellings
(following demolition of existing dwelling).
|
|
Recommendation
|
APPROVE
|
|
Public
Speakers:
|
None
|
|
Decision
|
APPROVED (Unanimously) as per recommendation, subject to the
completion of the section 106, - but with the variation of the reason for
condition 2 given above; and additional condition, requiring agreement as to
the siting of the garages and foundations of the garages to safeguard trees
outside the site. Wording of the
condition delegated to officers; the reason being to safeguard the wellbeing
of trees outside the site in accordance with policy 4/4 of the Cambridge
Local Plan.
ADDITIONAL Condition:
Notwithstanding the position of the proposed
garages for plots 2 and 3 shown on the submitted drawings, that siting is not
agreed and the development of the garages for the two bungalows to the rear
of the plot may not proceed without the prior written agreement of the local
planning authority regarding the siting of the said garages, their proposed
foundations and a report on the implications of the foundations for nearby
trees.
Reason: To safeguard the nearby trees outside the
site (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/4)
|
|
10/25/SAC |
10/0171/ADV - 23 High Street, Cherry Hinton PDF 39 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
c.
|
10/0171/ADV
|
|
Site
|
23 High Street, Cherry Hinton
|
|
Proposal
|
Installation of 1 free-standing sign (non
illuminated).
|
|
Recommendation
|
REFUSAL
|
|
Public
Speakers:
|
None
|
|
Decision:
|
REFUSED (3 votes to 2 on the Chairs
Casting Vote) in
accordance with the officer recommendation.
|
|
10/26/SAC |
10/0295/FUL - 11 Kinnaird Way PDF 56 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
d.
|
10/0295/FUL
|
|
Site
|
11 Kinnaird Way
|
|
Proposal
|
Erection of two storey front and rear
extensions.
|
|
Recommendation
|
APPROVE
|
|
Public Speakers:
|
Mr Robert Shepherd – Objector
Mr Don Proctor – Agent
|
|
Decision:
|
Approved (Unanimously) subject to the
conditions outlined in the committee report.
|
|
10/27/SAC |
10/0262/FUL - 23 Kelsey Crescent PDF 39 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
e.
|
10/0262/FUL
|
|
Site
|
23 Kelsey Cresent
|
|
Proposal
|
Erection of a part 1800mm, part 1200mm
fence, enclosing existing grass verge area and change of use from public
amenity space to private garden.
|
|
Recommendation
|
REFUSAL
|
|
Public Speakers:
|
Claire Desborough – Applicant
|
|
Decision:
|
Approved (against the officer recommendation) by
5 votes to 0 for the following reason;
Having heard the explanation of the applicant as to
why the fence had been erected in the position it had been and the reasoning
of the officers as to why the development was considered unacceptable, and
following discussion about the appearance of the development and its impact
upon the wider area, Committee came to the view that the fencing is not out
of context and does not have an adverse impact upon the open and spacious
character of the estate and is not therefore in conflict with:
East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 - Quality in the Built Environment; or
Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/4 - Responding to
Context
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 only of the debate leading to the grant of
planning permission.
As the application is retrospective no conditions
are required.
|
|
10/28/SAC |
10/0249/FUL - 44 Kelsey Crescent PDF 40 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
f.
|
10/0249/FUL
|
|
Site
|
44 Kelsey Cresent
|
|
Proposal
|
Erection of a close-boarded fence.
|
|
Recommendation
|
REFUSAL
|
|
Public Speakers:
|
Janine
Ruby – Applicant
|
|
Decision:
|
Approved (against the officer recommendation) by
5 votes to 0 for the following reason;
Having heard the explanation of the applicant as
to why the fence had been erected in the position it had been and the reasoning
of the officers as to why the development was considered unacceptable, and
following discussion about the appearance of the development and its impact
upon the wider area, Committee came to the view that the fencing is not out
of context and does not have an adverse impact upon the open and spacious
character of the estate and is not therefore in conflict with:
East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 - Quality in the Built Environment; or
Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/4 - Responding to
Context
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 only of the debate leading to the grant of
planning permission.
As the application is retrospective no conditions
are required.
|
|
10/29/SAC |
10/0254/FUL - 113 Kelsey Crescent PDF 39 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
g.
|
10/0254/FUL
|
|
Site
|
113 Kelsey Crescent
|
|
Proposal
|
Retrospective application for erection of a fence.
|
|
Recommendation
|
REFUSAL
|
|
Public Speakers:
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Approved (against the officer recommendation) by
5 votes to 0 for the following reason;
Having heard the explanation of the applicant as
to why the fence had been erected in the position it had been and the reasoning
of the officers as to why the development was considered unacceptable, and
following discussion about the appearance of the development and its impact
upon the wider area, Committee came to the view that the fencing is not out
of context and does not have an adverse impact upon the open and spacious
character of the estate and is not therefore in conflict with:
East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7 - Quality in the Built Environment; or
Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/4 - Responding to
Context
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.
As the application is retrospective no conditions
are required.
|
|
