Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor McPherson. 

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.

 

Councillor Stuart explained that she had sought the advice of the Head of Legal Services regarding her participation in item 12/1078/OUT as she lived in close proximity but outside of the statutory consultation area to the application site. Councillor Stuart explained that the Head of Legal Services had advised her that this did not preclude her participation in the item. Councillor Stuart also highlighted that one of the representations listed in the report came from her husband, but it was explained that she had not discussed the application with her husband.

 

 

The committee received an application for a certificate of lawfulness under Section 191 for use of land (excluding the footprint of the Cantabrigian's clubhouse) ancillary to the playing field as a car park.

 

The committee received representations from Andrew Gordon (Speaking in objection); Professor Muthesius (Speaking in objection) and Mr David Norman (Speaking in support of the application).

 

Andrew Gordon and Professor Muthesius raised the following issues in objection to the application

 

i.          Acknowledged the application was not a planning application.

 

ii.       The access continued to be unsuitable and dangerous.

 

iii.      The certificate of lawful purpose if approved, should only be approved at the minimum level possible.

 

iv.          Examples of intensification of use by Hills Road Sixth Form College were highlighted.

 

v.       The evidence supporting continuous use of the car park was contested.

 

vi.      The committee were urged to reject the application.

 

Mr David Norman spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to grant a certificate of lawfulness in accordance with the officer recommendation.

 

As based on the evidence provided in the application and in consideration of the information received from residents, the committee were satisfied that on the balance of probability, the land has continued to be used for car parking in association with the use of the playing fields from 1993 to the date of the application (19 years). There was no evidence that tennis continued to be played on the courts from its cessation in the early 1990’s to the present. The use has not been abandoned at any stage, substantially interrupted, or significantly altered in nature.

The committee received an application for outline planning permission for the construction of a wooden footbridge across Hobson's Brook with sections of path at each end, connecting Accordia with the public footpath network west of the brook. 

 

The committee received 8 representations.

 

Speaking in objection

 

·        Raymond Goldstein

·        Deborah Knight

 

Speaking in Support

 

·        Nigel Harris

·        Mr Drew

·        Clare Preston

·        Mrs Scotcher – Mrs Scotcher was unable to attend so the Committee Manager on her behalf read out a statement.

·        Ian Cray  

·        Professor Richards

 

The following points were raised in objection to the application.

 

i.        The proposals would have an adverse impact on the ecology, traffic and crime levels in the area.

 

ii.       The report was inconsistent and not based on evidence.

 

iii.          Privacy would be lost, as the area would be opened up to public access.

 

iv.          There would be a significant impact on wildlife.

 

The speakers spoke in support of the application.

 

The committee received an application for outline planning permission for the construction of a wooden footbridge across Hobson's Brook with sections of path at each end, connecting Accordia with the public footpath network west of the brook. 

 

The committee received 8 representations.

 

Speaking in objection

 

·        Raymond Goldstein

·        Deborah Knight

 

Speaking in Support

 

·        Nigel Harris

·        Mr Drew

·        Clare Preston

·        Mrs Scotcher – Mrs Scotcher was unable to attend so the Committee Manager on her behalf read out a statement.

·        Ian Cray  

·        Professor Richards

 

The following points were raised in objection to the application.

 

i.        The proposals would have an adverse impact on the ecology, traffic and crime levels in the area.

 

ii.       The report was inconsistent and not based on evidence.

 

iii.          Privacy would be lost, as the area would be opened up to public access.

 

iv.          There would be a significant impact on wildlife.

 

The speakers spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved (8 votes to 0) to approve of an additional condition ensuring the reserved matters application includes the provision of a ‘kissing gate’ on the eastern side of the Brook to dissuade cyclist use of the bridge and an informative suggesting the placement of signage in the vicinity of the bridge to encourage users of it to access the bridge from between the bunker and the Oak building. The precise wording of the condition and the informative to be agreed with Chair and relevant Ward Councillors

 

Resolved (7 votes to 1) to approve outline planning permission subject to the inclusion of an additional condition ensuring the reserved matters application includes the provision of a ‘kissing gate’ on the eastern side of the Brook to dissuade cyclist use of the bridge and an informative suggesting the placement of signage in the vicinity of the bridge to encourage users of it to access the bridge from between the bunker and the Oak building. The precise wording of the condition and the informative to be agreed with Chair and relevant Ward Councillors

 

Reasons for Approval

  

 

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,SS7,T2,T9,ENV1,ENV2,ENV3,ENV6,ENV7,WAT2,WAT4

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1,3/4,3/7,3/9,4/1,4/3,4/4,4,4/10/6,8/2,8/4,8/5

 

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. In particular, in reaching its decision to grant outline planning permission, Members of the South Area Committee were mindful of the nature and extent of objections raised to the proposed bridge, which included concerns over: safety; security; the privacy of occupants of apartments near to the proposed siting of the bridge; tree and ecological impact; drainage impact; the potential for the intensification of cycling over the bridge; and harm to the green belt. On balance, it was considered that the benefits of the bridge outweighed the concerns regarding its potential impact and that the outline application should be approved subject to conditions, including an additional condition regarding a kissing gate to discourage cyclist use and an informative relating to signage.

 

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.

The committee received an application for change of use from a single dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a basement flat (Use Class C3) and sui generis use at ground level and above to provide short-stay residential accommodation for visiting academies and researchers in association with the Cambridge Kazakhstan Development.

 

The committee received representations from Michael Chisholm representative of Brooklands Avenue Area Residents Association (speaking in objection) and Justin Bainton a representative of the applicant (speaking in support).

 

Michael Chisholm raised the following points in objection

 

i.        The proposed use would undermine the conservation area.

 

ii.       The area had special characteristics, which had been identified in the conservation area appraisal.

 

iii.      The national planning policy framework gave conservation areas similar status to battlefields, ancient monuments and world heritage sites, and should therefore be protected.

 

Mr Bainton spoke in support of the application.

 

 

Resolved (6 vote to 0) to approve planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation

 

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, ENV7

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 4/11 5/4, 5/7 and 6/3

 

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.

The committee received a reserved matters application for the erection of a Sports Pavilion, machinery store and car park. 

 

Guy Caddish representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to approve reserved matters in accordance with the officer recommendation 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: policies SS1, SS7, T9, T14, ENV2,

ENV7, WAT4;

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): policies 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/7,

3/9, 3/11, 3/12, 4/1,4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/6, 4/8, 4/13, 4/15, 4/16, 6/2,

8/2, 8/5, 8/6, 8/8, 8/10, and 8/18;

 

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 thangrant 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.

The committee received an application for the construction of a dwelling house within curtilage of 100 Glebe Road.

 

Resolved (Unanimously) to approve the application in accordance with officer recommendations for the following reasons.

 

1.This development has been approved subject to conditions and the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), 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, T9, T14, ENV7 and WM6

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003:

P6/1,P9/8

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1,3/4,3/7,3/10,3/12,4/4,5/1,8/2,8/6,8/10,10/1

 

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.

 

But

 

3. Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head of Planning, and the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by 31st January 2013 it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason(s).

 

The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for open space/sports facilities, community development facilities, waste facilities and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12 and 10/1, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010 and the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation.

The committee received an application for a single storey rear extension at 167 Queen Edith’s Way. 

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to approve the application as per the officer recommendations for 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, 3/14

 

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.