Agenda and minutes

None were received.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th September 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 September were approved and signed as a correct record.

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

Councillor Hipkin 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 the demolition of Gresham House, and refurbishment and extension of Gonville Hotel to provide an additional 43 bedrooms and new spa/treatment rooms, with internal and external remodelling of the existing hotel to create a new dining area and hotel entrance, and associated external works and landscaping

The Committee received representations in objection to applications 13/0646/FUL & 13/0647/CAC from Mrs Savage, Mrs Weaver & Dr Kelly representing local residents.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Gresham House was recognised as an important building in the Conservation Area Appraisal and by the Cambridge City Council Conservation Team.

     ii.          The proposed design would have a negative impact on the existing street scene and would not retain any character of the existing building.  

   iii.          Questioned why Gresham House could not be incorporated into the proposed development.

   iv.          The materials chosen for the development would be out of keeping with the neighbouring properties and would not last.

    v.          Suggested that the development did not comply with paragraphs 4/10 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan.

   vi.          The new three storey property would be a flat roofed contemporary extension which would dominate this section of Gresham Road.

 vii.          Proposed the application was contrary to the national planning policy framework, paragraph 13, and did not make a positive contribution to the conservation area.

viii.          There would be a significant loss of trees in a mature garden in the area which acts as a barrier to ensure privacy of neighbouring properties.

   ix.          There would be an impact on traffic congestion already exisiting in Gonville Road.

    x.          Gonville road is an important part of the City’s cycle route which is also used by pedestrians and local children from the surrounding schools.

   xi.          The entrance to the proposed Spa would increase the risk of an accident.

 xii.          There would be an increase in light pollution and noise, particularly from the Spa’s heating and cooling system for the outside hot tub.

xiii.          The proposed development would over look into the garden and bedrooms of 3 Gresham Road and result in loss of privacy.

Mr Colin Brown (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention)  to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report, subject to the deletion of the reference made to the policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Councillor Hipkin was not present for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

The Committee received an application for conservation area consent.

The application sought approval for the demolition of Gresham House, and refurbishment and extension of Gonville Hotel to provide an additional 43 bedrooms and new spa/treatment rooms, with internal and external remodelling of the existing hotel to create a new dining area and hotel entrance, and associated external works and landscaping

The Committee received representations in objection to applications 13/0646/FUL& 13/0647/CAC from Mrs Savage, Mrs Weaver & Dr Kelly representing local residents. Their representations are listed under 13/0646/FUL.

Mr Colin Brown (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention)  to refuse the application for conservation area consent in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report, subject to the deletion of the reference made to the policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the demolition of eighteen 1 bedroom bungalows; erection of sixteen affordable older persons flats; three affordable dwellings (2 houses and 1 FOG) and fourteen private dwellings (6 Flats and 8 Houses). Associated car parking and private and shared amenity space. No change of use. This is part of the Cambridge City Council Affordable Housing Framework

Mr Darren Heffer (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Ashton (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Had no objection to redevelopment of the site but objected to the lack of one bedroom properties, in particular bungalows, which were more desirable to older people (over 55 years old).

     ii.          There was a lack of one bedroom properties in and around the City Centre.

   iii.          The price of a two bedroom property was out of the price range of many older people.

   iv.          The proposed two bedroom properties had a lack of suitable garden space.

    v.          Due to the absence of appropriate storage areas this could lead to communal areas being used for such purposes.

   vi.          Questioned whether there were proper open spaces to encourage play.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) 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 Officer.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the proposed erection of two 5-bed houses, five 4-bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

The Committee received a representation in objection from Dr Harter representing local residents. 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The drawings from the application were misleading and not a true reflection of the scale of the proposed dwellings.

     ii.          The proposed development was too big in height and scale and too close to properties in Tenison Avenue.

   iii.          The properties in Tenison Avenue have unusually small back gardens which the proposed dwellings would dominate.

   iv.          There appears to be no effort to minimise the impact on the living conditions of those residents living in Tenison Avenue. 

Mr Colin Brown (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Brown (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The previous design attempted to merge with the conservation area. The new design was completely different and seemed to be worse than what was there previously. Examples of her objections were given by highlighting the scale and position of the proposed dwellings in relation to existing properties.

     ii.          The issue of drainage for the proposed dwellings did not seem to have been addressed.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendations for the following reasons: 

       i.          By virtue of the relationship between plots 3 and 5 and 15-27 Tenison Avenue, and the materials of construction of the houses on these plots, the development would have an overbearing sense of enclosure for the occupiers of 15-27 Tenison Avenue.  In so doing, the submitted plans fail to address the issues raised by the Inspector in his decision regarding the appeal against the refusal of application reference 11/1534/FUL.  The development is, therefore, contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and advice provided by the NPPF.

     ii.          The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, sports facilities, community development facilities, education and life-long learning facilities, waste storage, waste management facilities and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/14 and 10/1, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD 2012, and the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010.

The Chair informed the Committee that the item had been deferred at the request of the Officer to the next planning committee on 6^th November 2013.  

Councillor Rosenstiel did not participate in the decision making of this application. 

The Committee received an application for the proposed felling of a horse chestnut growing on Christ’s Pieces.

The application sought recommendation to support the proposal to fell the horse chestnut and that a replacement tree be planted in the same location, for reasons set out in the Officer report.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the Officer recommendation and support the application to fell the horse chestnut and that a replacement tree be planted in the same location.

The Committee received an application to confirm or not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 09/2013 that relates to a Birch Tree at 4 York Terrace.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the Officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.

The Committee received an application to confirm or not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 07/2013 that relates to Paradise Island, Paradise House, Granchester Street, Cambridge.

The Committee received a written representation in objection to the application from Mr John-Murray whose garden backs on to Paradise Island.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The TPO would be counter-productive.

     ii.          The woodland had been left to deteriorate.

   iii.          The woodland was too densely populated which prevents more attractive trees from growing.

   iv.          Has only witnessed residents whose properties back on to the woodland taking care of the woodland.

    v.          Questioned whether a TPO would enforce responsible management of the woodland by the owner.

   vi.          Stated that a TPO would make it more difficult for those residents who already carry the minimal work.

 vii.          Specified that if the Woodland were in a good condition then a TPO would be required.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the Officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.