Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Hart, Pogonowski, Shah and Marchant-Daisley 

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.

 

None 

The committee received an application for the erection of 1 x 2 bed dwelling (following demolition of existing garage and single storey extension). 

 

The committee heard representations from the applicant’s agent, Mr Joy and from Ms Ceranic on behalf of residents in the area.

 

Mr Joy made the following points:

·        Other properties in this street could have dormer windows installed without full planning permission being needed.

·        The applicant would be happy to agree the unilateral undertaking once the application is approved.

·        The applicants is concerned that the level of S106 contributions required is rather high.

·         

Ms Ceranic made the following points:

·        The proposal squeezes a 2 bed property into the space of a garage.

·        Proposal is ugly, narrow, top heavy and will be highly visible to anyone approaching the road.

·        Could encourage others to do the same

·        Might become a house for multiple occupation

·        Lack neighbourliness and conscience

·        Has caused a lot of stress in the area since 2008

·        Will create problems with parking, noise and traffic.

 

Members discussed the dormer window. Councillor Herbert had visited the site and felt the street had a clear style and character.

Comparisons to Riverside were not thought helpful. The design was out of keeping with the area and bartering about the S106 agreement was not appropriate.

 

Resolved to accept the officer recommendations and to refuse the application for the following reasons and with authority given to complete the section 106 agreement in the event of an appeal.

 

(By 6 votes to 1)

1.      The proposed dormer window, because of its size and location on the roof, and its prominence in the street scene on both Ferndale Rise and Ditton Walk, fails to respect the patttern of simple unadorned hipped roofs which are a key characteristic of this side of Ferndale Rise. For this reason, the building would be poorly integrated with the locality. The application fails to take the opportunity to improve the quality of the area, and is in conflict with East of England Plan 2008 policy ENV7, Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 3/14, and government guidance in PPS1.

 

(By 7 votes to 0)

The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community development facilities, waste storage or monitoring, in accordance with policies 3/8, 3/12, or 5/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and policies P6/1 and P9/8 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, and Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation of Open Space Standards 2010.

The committee received an application for the erection of 5 studio apartments with associated infrastructure (following demolition of existing building).

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to accept the officer recommendations and approve the application for the following reasons and subject to additional pre committee conditions as below:

 

New condition 9

 

Contaminated land planning condition

 

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the LPA for approval.

 

(a)             The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the LPA for approval.  The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study.  The strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to investigations commencing on site.

(b)             The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

(c)             A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the LPA.  The LPA shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site.  The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

(d)             Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. 

(e)             If, during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the LPA.

(f)               Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA.  The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology.  Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from site.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of future occupiers, Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13.

 

New Condition 10

 

Before the development/use hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for the insulation of the building(s) and/or plant in order to minimise the level of noise emanating from the said building(s) and/or plant 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.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of future occupiers, Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13.

 

1.This development has been approved subject to conditions and following the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development Plan, articularly the following policies:

 

East of England Plan (2008) T2, T9, T14, ENV6, ENV7.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1,

P9/8 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 4/11,

4/13, 5/1, 5/14, 7/3, 8/2, 8/6

 

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 an application for the demolition of existing building. 

 

Members requested that an additional condition that required a full photographic record be produced prior to demolition.

 

Resolved (7 vote to 0) to accept the officers recommendations and approve the application for the following reasons and with an additional condition seeking a photographic record of the building prior to its demolition:

 

1. This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development Plan, particularly the following policies: East of England Plan 2008 : ENV6 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 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.

The committee received an application for single storey rear and first floor rear extensions. 

 

The committee received representations from the applicant’s agent Mr Joy and objector Mrs Morrell.

 

Mr Joy raised the following points:

·        The proposed extension is smaller than existing extension in the area.

·        The petition had been signed by individuals not local to the site

·        Design was sympathetic to the area

 

Mrs Morrell raised the following points:

·        The extension would result in a lack of light

·        Not appropriate to the area

·        View from kitchen window if allowed would be a blank wall

·        Was unneighbourly

·        Was overbearing

·        Would result in overlooking

 

Members discussed the proposal and suggested it would result in a hemmed in aspect. The cumulative impact would be unreasonable in terms of overbearing and overlooking. It was felt to be of an unacceptable scale and would dominate neighbouring properties. Members sited polices 3.14b, 3.14d, 4.11a and 3.4.

 

Resolved (by a vote of 2 to 6) to reject the officer recommendation and to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

The proposal is unacceptable in that the size of the proposed extensions, their height and length, both at first floor and ground floor level, results in a cumulative scale that will, given the immediate proximity to the boundaries, unreasonably dominate the two neighbouring properties, causing them to suffer an undue sense of enclosure and loss of outlook which would erode the level of amenity that they should reasonably expect to enjoy.  It follows that the proposals have not demonstrated that they have responded to their context or that they relate well to their surroundings, and they will neither enhance nor preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area within which the site is located.  For these reason the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4, 3/14 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and advice in Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development (2005).  

The committee received an application for the erection of three one-bed dwellings.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendations and approve the application for the following reasons:

 

1.This development has been approved subject to conditions and following the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to generally conform to the Development Plan, particularly the following policies: East of England plan 2008: SS1, T9, T14, ENV7, WM8; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1, P9/8; Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/10, 3/11, 3/12, 5/1, 5/14, 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  ww.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 refurbishment of basement and ground floors with change of use to the first and second floors to residential accommodation. 

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to accept the officer recommendations and approve the application as per the officer’s report.