Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from City Councillor C. Smart and County Councillors Walsh and Whitehead.

Item Number	Councillor	Interest
14/68/EACe	Roberts	Personal Interest: Spoke as a Ward Councillor and took no part in the consideration of this item.
14/68/EACd	Robertson	Personal Interest: Spoke as a Ward Councillor and took no part in the consideration of this item.
14/68/EACb	Roberts	Personal Interest: Office overlooks this building, took no part in the consideration of this item.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2014.

The minutes of the meeting of the 31^st July 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered the outstanding action and gave the following updates:

 

Police and Safer Neighbourhoods: A breakdown of crime figures had been discussed with Councillor Sinnott outside the meeting.

 

Willow Trees in Abbey Pool Car Park: On-going.

 

HGV Speeding in Ditton Lane: Meetings with County Councillor for the area were on-going and further details would be available at the next meeting.

 

Contribution from North Area for River Bridge: The North Area Committee have agreed to match the East Areas contribution.

 

Consultation re Romsey Terrace Development: This matter would be considered by the Central Planning Committee in the near future.

 

Location of Cycle racks in Mill Road: The City Council’s Access Officer has reviewed the locations of cycle racks in Mill Road and stated that whilst the pavement is wide enough, street furniture could have been better placed. The cycle racks do not need to be moved at present and a long term solution might be to relocate the bins so that all street furniture is on the same side of the pavement.

 

Shape Your Place: No progress to report. Councillor Bourke is engaged in on-going discussions with the coms team at the County Council.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

1.   Antony Carpen: Addressed the Committee to remind people of the first ‘Be the Change’ event to be held on the 13^th September 2014.

         

          Members thanked Mr Carpen.

The Committee received a report from PS Chris Norden regarding the Policing and Safer Neighbourhoods trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 10^th April 2014. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details).

 

PS Norden responded to questions as detailed below:

 

1.   Michael Bond: The Area behind the Cherry Trees Day Centre is suffering from anti-social behaviour including, drug use, graffiti, litter and aggressive behaviour.

 

     This type of behaviour is known to move about as action in one area moves the problem to a different area. Additional Police patrols would be arranged. Members of the public were encouraged to report any concerns.

 

2.   Richard Taylor: Could the breakdown of crimes include greater detail regarding the seriousness of injuries?

 

     It would be difficult to breakdown figures based on injuries. However, it might be possible to go into greater detail on the type of crimes recorded.

 

     Councillor Blencowe stated that those figures were publically available elsewhere and not required for Area     Committee purposes. The Area Chairs had made a           joint   decision to keep the Police and Safer Neighbourhood reports uniform across the four areas.

 

3.   Councillor Sinnott: Can violence figures be broken down to highlight how much of this was domestic violence?

 

     A visit to Parkside Police station would be arranged for Councillor Sinnott for a full briefing of crime recording processes.

 

4.   Councillor Johnson: Requested an update on recent action taken to tackle drug dealing in the Whitehill Road area.

 

     Successful raids had taken place and arrests had been made.

 

5.   Councillor Johnson: Is there a strategy in place to tackle London dealers taking advantage of vulnerable individuals in order to use their homes for illegal purposes?

 

     The strategy uses partnership working to support vulnerable residents in the most appropriate way to meet their needs. This might mean moving them to safer locations.

 

6.   Councillor Roberts: Residents have noted an increase in anti-social behaviour in the Newmarket Road – Elizabeth Way area.

 

     Police are aware of, and addressing, this issue. It is thought to be linked to the access surgery in the area.

 

7.   Councillor Baigent: Mill Road traders have raised concerns about street drinking and anti-social behaviour in the area. Can monthly updates be provided?

 

     Mill Road has improved in recent months. PS Norden agreed to discuss traders concerns with the local PCSO.

 

Poor response times when using the 101 telephone number, were reported by members of the public. The Committee asked for this comment to feedback to senior Police officers.

 

Members expressed support for retaining the current priorities.

 

Resolved: (unanimiously) to agree the following priorities:

 

     i.        Tackle the supply of drugs in the East area

    ii.        Policing issues associated with Mill Road

   iii.        Reduce shoplifting in the East area

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Community Development regarding the Project Appraisal for East Barnwell Community Hub.

 

The report outlined the project and asked the Committee to a contribution towards improved community facilities at East Barnwell Community Centre.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Expressed support for additional provision for young people in this area.

    ii.        Suggested that, due to the clustered nature of housing in the area (separated by major roads), a single community hub would be welcomed.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Community Development and the County Council’s Community Hubs Project Manager said the following:

   iii.        The project steering group were aware that new provision would need to serve a wide catchment and a strategy would be in place to deliver this.

  iv.        County and City Council officers would be taking a pro-active approach to engage the community as the project developed.

   v.        County Officers were confident that they could deliver most of the desirable elements of the design brief within existing budgets. However, additional elements could be added later.

 

Resolved (unanimously):

 

     i.        To approve subject to planning approval, tender process and completion of a suitable legal agreement, a capital payment of £255,000 to Cambridgeshire County Council as a contribution towards improved community facilities at East Barnwell Community Centre. This project is already included in the Council’s Capital Plan. The total project cost is £1.8m.

         

      ii.            Noted that there were no revenue or maintenance implications for the Council.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the conversion and extension of existing frontage building from office to 1no. flat and 1 studio flat; and erection of 4 studio flats to the rear (following demolition of existing outbuildings), together with associated infrastructure.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Sue Wright

·        Deborah Griffin

 

Sue Wright’s representations covered the following issues:

     i.        Loss of light.

    ii.        Overbearing.

   iii.        Loss of amenity.

  iv.        Contravenes 3.10a and 3.14b of Local Plan.

   v.        Building mass.

  vi.        Application was rejected in 2011 as being overbearing and amendments do not go far enough to address this.

 

Deborah Griffin’s representations covered the following issues:

 vii.        Bulky building casting shadow.

viii.        A better compromise could be achieved.

  ix.        Volume of building would be doubled.

   x.        Out of scale with the area.

  xi.        Car free requirement could not be managed and policed.

 

Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 5  – and on the Chair’s casting vote)

to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought (retrospective) approval for rendering external wall and painting in soft stone colour.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Chris Freeman

·        Allen Brigham

 

Chris Freeman’s representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The street scape had been destroyed.

    ii.        In a conservation area, appearances matter.

   iii.        Other shops had maintained the Victorian facade.

  iv.        Is not acceptable, even if other properties have taken this approach prior to area gaining conservation status.

   v.        Character of the area should be conserved.

 

Allen Brigham’s representation covered the following issues:

  vi.        Approving this would be endorsing a race to the bottom.

 vii.        Conservation area should be improved.

viii.        Conservation status should be inspiring.

  ix.        Need to be very clear that this is not related to external insulation.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

The rendered finish, because of its prominence and its extent, would cause significant harm to the character of the conservation area, in which the original brick predominates, contrary to policies 3/4 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the proposed dwelling following demolition of two garage terraces.

 

Don Proctor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 10 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a first floor, rear extension and internal alterations.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Sophie Smiley.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Area is of Edwardian character.

    ii.        Outlook to the West of her property is a blank brick wall.

   iii.        Property already suffers from a feeling of enclosure.

  iv.        Kitchen and dining room already very dark and has built a garden room to gain additional light.

   v.        Shadow diagrams provided are misleading and do not illustrate the loss of afternoon light.

  vi.        A first floor extension would restrict daylight and increase the sense of gloom.

 

Steve Sillery (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Ciouncillor Robertson (Ward Councillor for Petersfield) addressed the Committee about the application and made the following points:

     i.        Proposal is overbearing and would overshadow neighbours.

    ii.        First floor extension would restrict sunlight and increase gloom to neighbours.

   iii.        Would create a feeling of enclosure.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that the already approved extension to St Collette’s to the rear of this site, was a material consideration.

 

Members suggested that they would like to see more detail in the sunlight study.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed deferring this item until further sunlight studies had been completed. He reminded the Committee that, if deferred, this application would be considered by the Central Planning Committee and not East Area Committee.

 

This proposal was lost by 5 votes to 3.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

Because of its height, length and proximity to the common boundary with 25 Tenison Avenue, the proposed extension would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of that house through an overbearing sense of enclosure, contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of 6x affordable units following demolition of garages. Associated car parking and cycle parking and private and shared amenity space.

 

The Committee received a written representation in objection to the application from Dr Hester Goddard.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Expressed no objection to the development, but had concerns about boundary of her property.

    ii.        Had concerns regarding trees planted in the area of the boundary.

   iii.        Requested further consultation prior to contractors beginning work on site.

 

Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the Committee about the application and made the following points:

 

     i.        Was speaking on behalf of a resident of Keynes Road.

    ii.        Resident has a son with a medical condition.

   iii.        Has been using the rear of the property to access their garden as their son is a wheelchair user.

  iv.        Rear access would be lost of application approved.

 

The Principal Planner stated that the points raised by Councillor Robertson were civil matters and not planning considerations.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

As there had been no objections to this application, the Committee delegated this decision to Officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey extension to form porch and prayer room to allow disabled access into the front of the Church.

 

David Joy (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee considered that the access problems outweighed the impact of the proposed extension on a Listed Building.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 4) to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendations subject to conditions to be drafted by officers and approved by Chair and Vice-chair:

 

The Committee received an application for listed building consent.

 

The application sought approval for listed building for a single storey extension to the Church, to form a porch and prayer room.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 4) to grant the application for listed building consent contrary to the officers recommendation, subject to conditions to be drafted by officers and approved by Chair and Vice-chair (in the absence of the spokes).

The Committee received an application for planning enforcement action to be taken in respect of a breach of planning control.

 

The report sought delegated authority to serve an Enforcement Notice to address the unauthorised development at 591 Newmarket Road, namely, “Without planning permission the creation of a separate residential unit.”

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation that enforcement action is authorised in respect of the breach of planning control.

 

The Committee received an application for planning enforcement action to be taken.

 

The report sought delegated authority to serve an Enforcement Notice to address the unauthorised development at 136 Perne Road, namely, “Without planning permission the material change of use of a mobile home to a separate residential unit”.

 

The Committee received a representation from the owner of the property, Mr Sanderson.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        An application for lawful development has been submitted and the fee paid.

    ii.        It is unfair to consider the matter until that application has been considered.

   iii.        A mobile home has been on the site for 14 years and has been lived in for most of that time.

  iv.        The property has the correct certificates for Electricity and Gas supplies.

 

The Enforcement Officer confirmed that if the certificate of lawfulness was granted after enforcement action had been approved, that approval would supersede an enforcement action. 

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 10 votes to 1) to accept the officer recommendation that an enforcement notice be authorised to address the outstanding breach of planning control.

 

The Committee received an application for planning enforcement action to be taken.

 

The report sought delegated authority to serve an Enforcement Notice to address the unauthorised development at 35 Collier Road, namely, “Without planning permission the creation of a separate residential unit.”

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation that enforcement action is authorised in respect of the breach of planning control.

 

The Committee received an application for planning enforcement action to be taken.

 

The report sought delegated authority to serve three Enforcement Notices to address the breach of the following conditions of 11/0066/FUL:

Condition 1:

Within 1 month of the date of the permission hereby granted details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.  The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6)

Condition 2:

The House of Multiple Occupation hereby approved shall not be let out to more than 7 tenants at any one time.

Reason:  To restrict the intensity of the use in the interests of neighbouring amenity, Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 5/7.

Condition 3:

Within 1 month of the date of the permission hereby granted a Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The management strategy shall be carried out as agreed.

Reason:  In the interests of neighbouring amenity, Cambridge Local Plan policy 5/7.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation that enforcement action is authorised in respect of the breach of planning control.