Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Meeting Room - Cherry Trees Day Centre
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Re-Ordering Agenda 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
would follow the order of the agenda. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologies For Absence Minutes: Apologies were
received from Councillors Hart and Wright. The East Area
Committee (EAC) wished to pass on their thoughts to Councillor Wright to thank
her for her service and pass on their best wishes for her recovery. Action Point: Councillor Blencowe to pass on East Area Committee’s
thanks to Councillor Wright for her service. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2012. Minutes: The minutes of the
9 February 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matters & Actions Arising From The Minutes PDF 26 KB Reference will be
made to the Committee Action Sheet available
under the ‘Matters & Actions Arising From The Minutes’ section of the
previous meeting agenda. General agenda
information can be accessed using the following hyperlink: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=147 Additional documents: Minutes: (i) 12/4/EAC Open Forum “Action Point: Head of New Communities Service (County) to bring future reports to EAC for review of
potential projects that could be supported by East and South Corridor Funding.” Committee Manger invited Dearbhla Lawson (Head of Strategic Planning) to 12 April
2012 EAC in lieu of Joseph Whelan (former Head
of New Communities Service - County) changing responsibilities. County representative to bring future reports to EAC for review of
potential projects that could be supported by East and South Corridor funding. Head of Strategic Planning has advised September 2012 would be the
preferred date for the next report. (ii) 12/5/EAC Open Forum “Action Point: Councillor Blencowe
to respond to Dr Eva’s Cherry Trees cycle parking query raised in ‘open forum’
section. Councillor Blencowe to liaise with Building Manager concerning
possibility of cycle rack provision.” Councillor Blencowe has discussed the
provision of cycle racks with the Cherry Trees Building Manager. Councillor
Blencowe was in discussions with Clare Rankin (Cycling & Walking Officer)
concerning funding for the provision of cycle racks. (iii) 12/5/EAC Open Forum
“Action Point: Councillor Sedgwick-Jell to respond to Dr Eva’s Riverside Place gritting
concerns raised in ‘open forum’ section. Councillor Sedgwick-Jell to clarify
position with Graham Hughes (Service Director, Growth & Infrastructure –
County) to ascertain gritting schedule.” Action Point: Councillor Sedgwick-Jell to
advise East Area Committee on progress at June meeting. (iv) 12/5/EAC
Open Forum “Action Point: Councillor Hart to respond to Mrs Peachey’s query
regarding no verge parking signs in Whitehall Close raised in ‘open forum’ section.
Councillor Hart to liaise with Ward Councillors and officers on how to avoid
council vehicles parking on verges in future.” Councillor Hart has taken the issue
forward with City Officers, which appears to have resolved the situation. (v) 12/7/EAC Tree Planting on Parks and Open Space - East Area “Action
Point: Alistair Wilson (Streets and Open
Spaces Asset Manager) to respond to Mr Woodburn’s tree planting query
raised in ‘Tree Planting
on Parks and Open Space - East Area’ section. Alistair Wilson to liaise with Matthew
Magrath (Arboricultural Officer) and Ward Councillors concerning practicability
of replacing poplar trees in Clifton Road.” The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager has
attempted to contact Mr Woodburn. The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager has
surveyed the area and identified replacement sites. The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager is
happy to meet Mr Woodburn to discuss the issue. Action Point: Councillor Blencowe to liaise with the Streets and Open
Spaces Asset Manager plus Mr Woodburn to ensure the tree planting query
has been resolved. (vi) 12/8/EAC Environmental Improvement Programme “Action
Point: Andy Preston
(Project Delivery & Environment Manager) to report back to East Area Committee
on results of bid for County Council Minor Works Fund.” Project Delivery & Environment Manager to report back to East Area
Committee post 12 April 2012 on results of bid for County Council Minor Works
Fund. Project Delivery & Environment Manager to confirm a date to do this in future as the Fund is subject to the
County Council process of reviewing bids. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Open Forum Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking. Minutes: 1. Mr Green
raised a concern that people were turning their front gardens into parking lots
by removing their boundary walls. This could be detrimental to the character of
the Petersfield Conservation Area. Councillors were asked if planning policy
could prevent this. Councillors Smart, Blencowe and Saunders referred to the Local Plan
Review. A consultation process would be undertaken Summer 2012 post publication
of an issues and options paper. Residents Associations would be actively
consulted for views on permitted actions in conservation areas etc as part of
the review. The consultation process would enable participants to put forward
their views on how to shape future planning policy. 2. Mr Dixon
spoke as Chair of Petersfield Mansion Resident’s Association to express concern
regarding
the width of the
Palmer’s Walk path. Specific points
raised: ·
The
path was busy and well used. ·
The
path was too narrow to enable a contraflow of cyclists and pedestrians. ·
Damage
was caused to flowerbeds and grass land when pedestrians/cyclists stepped off
the path. ·
EAC
were asked to support an assessment of the path with a view to its widening. EAC supported the path
assessment and suggested this could be achieved through an environmental
improvement project. Action
Point: Councillor Blencowe to liaise with Andy Preston (Project Delivery & Environment Manager) regarding
adding the assessment of the Palmer’s Walk path to the environmental
improvement projects scheme. 3. Mrs Peachey
(Whitehall Neighbourhood Watch) queried future actions regarding flowerbeds in
Whitehall Close now the project had been added to the list of possible environmental improvement projects. The Project Delivery & Environment Manager would report back to East
Area Committee in future on the results of a bid for County Council Minor Works
Fund to undertake environmental improvement work. The report would include a
feasibility study of the Whitehall Close flowerbed project. 4. Mr Johnson raised concerns regarding dog
fouling in Abbey ward. Specific points
raised: ·
It was his
opinion, and many residents agreed, that the Abbey area needed to be cleansed
on a far more regular basis. Specifically alleyways, play areas and public spaces. ·
City Ranger
had been called on multiple occasions to clear up fly-tipped litter or to
cleanse a particular area. ·
It was
discovered through a Freedom of Information request to the City Council that
the Council has not issued any fixed penalty notice to a dog owner suspected of
letting their dog foul in public spaces for the last five years. ·
Councillors
were asked to consider the view that there needed to be a re-evaluation of the
current street cleaning and dog enforcement services provided by the City
Council. Dog fouling was a serious issue that affected open spaces. ·
Queried if
the £30,000 spent on a pilot scheme of 'Street Champions' by the City Council
was the most effective usage of money. EAC and members of the public felt that dog fouling was a continuing
citywide issue Councillor Pogonowski said that he had been unsuccessful in 2011 when
seeking agreement from the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste
Services to increase the frequency of enforcement patrols to prevent dog
fouling. He invited members of the public to lobby the City Council directly or
through him to amend the budget in order to increase enforcement patrols. Councillor Smart said the aim of the Street Champions scheme was to
address issues through preventative action ie the focus was on prevention
rather than cure. 5. Mr Johnson raised concerns regarding the impact
of high travel costs on visitors to Addenbrooke’s Hospital. Specific points raised: ·
Abbey
residents, patients and key NHS workers faced many difficulties in reaching
Addenbrooke's hospital. Going from Barnwell Road to the hospital by public
transport currently involved two bus rides, into, and then out of the city
centre. The journey commonly takes at least 50 minutes. ·
Alternative
transport to Addenbrooke's via taxi is prohibitively expensive for many people. ·
Motorists
to Addenbrooke's faced limited and expensive parking facilities. ·
Due to the
above issues, residents in Abbey had organised a campaign and petition to prove
to Stagecoach, and other bus operators, the need for a direct bus service from
Abbey Ward to Addenbrooke's. ·
The
Petition was presented to the last full meeting of the County Council and would
seek, in due course, the support of the City Council. ·
East Area
Committee were asked for their informal support for the campaign. EAC Councillors were happy to support the direct bus service from Abbey
Ward to Addenbrooke's. Councillors Sadiq and Bourke observed that the 114 service was due to be
reviewed in 2013. It was hoped that discussions between councillors and officers
would lead to a continuation of service. It would be a valuable addition to the
service if the 114 could cover the current route and Mr Johnson’s proposal. 6. Mrs
Owles said that Petersfield was short of community open space. Specific points raised: ·
Referred to comments made
at 9 February 2012 EAC. ·
Felt there was a history of
s106 money raised in Petersfield being allocated to a central pot ·
Queried if the City Council
had reconsidered it decision not to purchase
the east strip of land next to the Howard Mallett Centre. EAC Councillors acknowledged there was a lack
of open space in Petersfield Ward. It was not possible to address this
retrospectively, so EAC Councillors would champion greater open space provision
in future developments. Planning Officers would be encouraged to more
rigorously enforce Local Planning Policy 3/8 in future to require greater open
space provision. There was no inclination for the Council to
purchase the strip of land near the Howard Mallett Centre at present due to the
anticipated cost. 7. Mr
Gawthrop suggested that EAC should bid to use some of the expected circa £1m
section 106 developer contribution from the CB1 development for open space
provision. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policing and Safer Neighbourhoods PDF 316 KB Minutes: The committee received a report from
Sergeant Stenton regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods trends. The report outlined actions taken since the
Committee on 15 December 2011. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends
for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous
priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were alcohol-related anti-social behaviour
(ASB) in Norfolk Street, East Road and Newmarket Road, anti-social use of mopeds, plus excess speed in Mill
Road and Coleridge Road. The committee discussed the following
policing issues: (i)
Anti-social
behaviour (ASB) linked to street drinking. (ii)
ASB affecting
open spaces in general. (iii) ASB affecting Norfolk Street area when music events were held at the Man on the Moon pub. Sergeant Stenton undertook to liaise with Councillor Brown regarding the policing of Norfolk Street area when music events are held at the Man on the Moon pub. (iv) Street life ASB in east of city. Specifically relating to alcohol, drugs and threatening behaviour. Areas of particular concern were identified as Mill Road, Mill Road Cemetary, Broadway, Norfolk Street and Newmarket Road. (v) Greater emphasis on licensing agreement terms to prevent the sale of alcohol to people who were already intoxicated. Licence holders should feel supported that they can refuse to sell alcohol when it would be inappropriate to do so, and that they have a responsibility not to do so under licensing law eg when someone is intoxicated. (vi) Rising levels of ASB in Petersfield and Romsey. (vii) The need to address ASB through joined up multi-agency action. For example, provision of support and facilities for the street life community, as well as the option for Police and Licensing Officers to take enforcement action. Greater focus on education, encouragement and support. (viii) Speeding in Mill Road and Coleridge Road. Also the need to tackle this through long term measures rather than just periodic police enforcement action. Sergeant Stenton undertook to liaise with Councillor Owers regarding the policing of Mill Road to reduce speeding. (ix) ASB relating to the riding of mopeds in Birdwood Road area. (x) Vehicle crime such as theft and vandalism in the Rustat Road area. (xi) People should report crimes in order to help the Police collect evidence and trend information. Members of the public raised a number of points, as set out below. 1. Mrs
Deards raised concern about drug dealing and ASB of moped riders in Budleigh
Close and Burnside. Sergeant Stenton noted these concerns. 2. Unannounced
fire service premises inspections had led to joined up multi-agency action to
tackle ASB and arson incidents. EAC and the Police representatives welcomed
this information. Sergeant Stenton added that street life ASB and drinking
required a multi-agency response to avoid displacing problems from one area to
another. This was why an East Area wide alcohol and drug related priority had
been suggested. Councillor Owers
requested changes to the recommendations. Councillor Owers formally proposed to
amend the recommended priorities as follows:
(iii)
(i) Alcohol and drug related street anti-social behaviour in the east, targeting known hotspots and focussing on education and enforcement to address licensed premises selling alcohol to the intoxicated. (ii)
ASB mopeds in Coleridge. (iii)
Vehicle crime such as theft and
vandalism in east of City. The amendments were unanimously agreed. The following priorities were agreed
unanimously: (i) Alcohol and drug related street anti-social behaviour in the east, targeting known hotspots and focussing on education and enforcement to address licensed premises selling alcohol to the intoxicated. (ii)
ASB mopeds in Coleridge. (iii)
Vehicle crime such as theft and
vandalism in east of City. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Development and Leisure Grants PDF 695 KB Item to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: The committee
received a report from the Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire Community
Foundation (CCF) regarding Community Development and Leisure Grants. Members considered
applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report, and amended below.
The Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire Community Foundation responded to
member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.
The Chief Executive
of CCF advised EAC that subsequent to publishing of the Officer’s report, it
was now recommended to allocate £2,000 to SIN Cru. Councillor
Marchant-Daisley requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Marchant-Daisley
formally proposed to amend the recommended PACT (ref WEB9405)
funding as follows:
(i)
Max of £5,000
(£4,626 plus a maximum of £374 if required for the road closure). (ii)
Max of £4,626
(if the road closure was not required). The amendments were agreed (by 6 votes to
3). Councillor Pogonowski
requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Pogonowski formally
proposed to amend the recommended SIN Cru (ref WEB45670) funding as follows:
(i)
£5,000 The amendment was lost (6 votes to 5 – with Chair’s casting vote). The Chair decided
that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on
and recorded separately: (i)
Resolved (by 6 votes to 3) to approve the
grant allocation as amended for £4,626 up to a maximum of £5,000 for PACT. (ii)
Resolved (unanimously) to approve the
grant allocation as listed above for £300 for East Barnwell Friendship Club. (iii)
Resolved (unanimously) to approve the
grant allocation as listed above for £250 for Priory Townswomens Guild. (iv)
Resolved (by 9 votes to 1) to approve the
grant allocation as listed above for £500 for Queen's Jubilee Street Party. (v)
Resolved (unanimously) to approve the
grant allocation as listed above for £2,000 for SIN Cru. (vi)
Resolved (unanimously) to approve the
grant allocation as listed above for £2,000 for Cambridge Music Festival, dependent on 2 schools being identified in the
East Area. The Chief Executive
of CCF undertook to provide Councillor Blencowe with further information
regarding the two east area primary schools (when identified) that would
participate in the Cambridge Music Festival (ref 3430). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Olympics Public Art Project The session will
include a presentation by Andy Preston (Project Delivery & Environment
Manager) and artist company (Same Sky), plus a question and answer session for
Councillors and members of the public. Cambridge City
Council would like to introduce its Community Olympic Public Art Commission,
which is inspired by the Olympics and its Mission Statement. The City Council is
working with Same Sky, an artist-led charity recognised for their high quality
art projects and community events. The project will
run throughout the spring and summer in each of the four Committee areas of
Cambridge, culminating in an event when the Olympic Torch arrives on 7 July. The City Council are keen for as many people as possible to get
involved. Same Sky will provide a display at the Area Committee evening to
answer any questions about the project, leaflets containing further information
will also be available. Minutes: The committee
received a presentation from the Director of Same Sky (project artist company)
and (City) Project Delivery & Environment Manager regarding the Community Olympics Public Art Project. The presentation
outlined: (i)
Same Sky
wished to work with local artists, schools and community groups as part of the
event. (ii)
Same Sky
proposed to undertake public art and carnival projects to promote community
cohesion. (iii)
Same Sky
wished to showcase the event through a free show (serving as a rehearsal for
the Olympics event) at an earlier local event. Nominations for such an event
were requested. Volunteers, suggestions for events that Same
Sky can engage with, comments or queries should be addressed to: Dan Lake Project & Production Manager Same Sky |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meeting Dates 2012/13 2012/2013 dates previously approved based on an 8 week
meeting cycle:
2012/2013 dates for approval based on a 6 week meeting cycle: 14 June 2012, 2 August 2012, 6 September 2012, 18
October 2012, 29 November 2012, 10 January 2013, 14 February 2013, 21 March 2013
and 25 April 2013 Indicative 2013/2014 dates for information based on an 8
week meeting cycle: 13 June 2013, 15 August 2013, 17 October 2013, 12 December 2013, 6 February 2014 and 3 April 2014 Note: These maybe subject to change if East Area Committee are minded to continue meetings based on a 6 week meeting cycle. Minutes: Meeting dates for 2012/13 were agreed as follows:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National Planning Policy Framework Minutes: The committee
received an oral report from the City Development Manager regarding the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). The City
Development Manager advised: (i)
The NPPF was
published 27 March 2012. (ii)
Members were
provided with a note from the City Council Policy Team entitled Key Headlines
from the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework. (iii)
The Committee
needed to be aware of the NPPF and take the guidance that it provides into
account. (iv)
The effect of
the NPPF is to replace existing government guidance in the form of the Planning
Policy Guidance, Planning Policy Statements, Circular 05/2005, which relates to
Planning Obligations and other government guidance documents. This guidance is replaced by the NPPF, which
sets out the Governments planning policies for England and how these are
expected to be applied. (v)
The NPPF does
not replace the Development Plan which comprises the Cambridge Local Plan, the Cambridgeshire
and Peterborough Structure Plan and the East of England Plan. (vi)
At the heart
of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means approving
development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. (vii)
Where the
development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies
in the NPPF or where specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development
should be restricted. (viii)
It is the
opinion of officers that the development plan is neither absent nor silent in
relation to the policies against which the applications on this Agenda need to
be assessed. The development plan is
also not out-of-date in this regard.
For this reason officers are confident that the development plan can be
relied on for decision making purposes and it is not necessary to rely on the
NPPF alone. (ix)
Officers have
reviewed their recommendations in the light of the guidance provided by the
NPPF. In each case a table was produced on the Amendment Sheet that
demonstrates the relationship between previous government guidance and the NPPF
guidance. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Applications PDF 31 KB The applications for planning permission listed below require determination. A report is attached with a plan showing the location of the relevant site. Detailed plans relating to the applications will be displayed at the meeting. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/0164/DEMDET: 14 Mercers Row PDF 251 KB Minutes: The committee received an application for
prior approval to demolition. The application sought approval for demolition of single storey industrial buildings
(2no) of brick construction under felt flat roof with fibre cement pitched
roofs. The Committee: Resolved (by 9
votes to 0 - unanimously) to
accept the officer recommendation to grant prior approval as per the agenda. Reason prior approval granted: 1. Except
with the prior written agreement of the local planning authority in writing no
construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other
than between the following hours: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday,
0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public
Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/0020/FUL - 19A Lyndewode Road PDF 973 KB Minutes: The committee received an application to widen the existing vehicular access. The application sought approval to widen vehicular access onto applicant’s property
and for enclosure of the area in front of the garage to prevent the
accumulation of litter from passers-by. The committee received representations in
objection to the application from the following: ·
Mr Gawthrop ·
Mr Turner The representations
covered the following issues: (i)
Concern that the
proposed work would damage tree roots on-site, specifically the walnut tree’s. (ii)
Suggested the
root assessment report requested by the Arboriculture Officer was missing from the Planning Officer’s report. (iii)
Concern over Planning
Department procedures notifying residents of the application. (iv)
Concern over loss of a
Victorian wall due to the insertion of a gate. This would affect the
streetscape and character of the area. (v)
Concern over
pedestrian and vehicular safety as a result of the proposed new access. This
would exacerbate current issues. (vi)
Suggested the
application would exacerbate current parking issues. There was currently
restricted turning space in the street. Mr Joy (Applicant’s Agent)
addressed
the committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 5
votes to 2) to accept the
officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda. 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, ENV6 and ENV7 Cambridge Local Plan
(2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 4/3, 4/4, 4/11 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/0018/FUL: 109 Burnside PDF 661 KB Minutes: Councillor Benstead withdrew from the meeting for this
item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making. The committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension. The committee received a representation in
objection to the application from the following: ·
Mrs Deards The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
Concerns over
size of extension and its proximity to the boundary fence. (ii)
Concerns
regarding overlooking, overshadowing and the effect of a taller neighbouring
building on skyline views. The Committee: Resolved (by 7
votes to 0) to accept the
officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda. 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:
ENV6 and ENV7 Cambridge Local Plan
(2006): 3/4, 3/14 and 4/11 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Continuation of Business The Committee resolved
(by 4 votes to 0) to extend the committee post 10:30 pm to conclude its
business. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/0269/FUL: 17 Ainsworth St PDF 785 KB Minutes: The committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a loft conversion and rear roof extension. Mr Hunter (Applicant) addressed the
committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 9 votes to 0 - unanimously) to reject the officer recommendation to
refuse the application. Resolved
(by 9 votes to 0 - unanimously) to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendations subject
to the following conditions and reasons for approval: 1. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of section 51 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces is
appropriate (East of England policies ENV6 and ENV7 and Cambridge Local Plan
polices 3/4, 3/14 and 4/11). 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 polices ENV 6 and
ENV7 Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4,
3/14 and 4/11 2. The
decision has been made having 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. 3. In
reaching their decision the East Area Committee were of the view that the
revisions that had been made to the plans in response to the refusal of
planning permission for an earlier application were sufficient to overcome
their concerns about that earlier scheme.
The Committee took account of the site context, the degree to which the
development would be visible in the streetscene and the changes that had been
made to the proposal in comparison with the earlier scheme. The Committee were of the view that the
development would not harm the amenity of the Conservation Area of which the
site forms part. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/0058/FUL - Coleridge Community College, Radegund Road PDF 978 KB Minutes: The committee received an application for
retrospective planning permission. The application sought retrospective approval for replacement of
floodlights around the multi-use games area. The Committee: Resolved
(by 5 votes to 4) to defer
the application to the next meeting of the East Area Committee to allow
confirmation of the following to be brought forward: 1.
The hours of
operation of the floodlights that the applicant wished to be available to them. 2.
Clarification
of the timing of the visit by the Environmental Health officer to the site and
a definitive view of whether or not the operation of the lights would be likely
to have an adverse effect on amenity. Clarification was also sought regarding
the reference to a statutory light nuisance. |