Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin. Councillor Holland attended as the alternate.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6^th January 2016.

Minutes of the meeting of the 3^rd February 2016 to follow.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee returned to the application for full planning permission, as adjourned from 3 February 2016.

The application sought approval for erection of 3.No four bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

The Committee:

The Chair asked for a recorded vote.

Councillors Dryden, Hart and Holland voted to refuse the application.

Councillors Blencowe, Smart and Tunnacliffe voted to support the application.

Councillor Pippas abstained.

Councillor Gawthrope abstained as he was not present at the 3 February committee.

Resolved (3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

The proposed development would, by virtue of its unsympathetic scale, bulky design and loss of trees, have a significantly detrimental impact on the character and setting of this edge of city site and surrounding rural context. The proposed development would result in an alien form of development and unduly diminish the rural character of this green edge from Lime Kiln Road. The proposal therefore fails to sympathetically respond to the site context and setting of the city. For these reasons the proposed development conflicts with policies 3/2, 3/4, 3/12 and 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of existing rear lean-to lobby, w.c. and porch, loft conversion including raising the main roof ridge with rear extension at second floor level, ground floor rear extension, first floor rear extension and insertion of new doorway to the front light well to provide access for bin storage

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 mixed use development comprising ground floor retail (use Class A1), with non-speculative student accommodation scheme of 26No. bedrooms on the upper floors to be occupied by Abbey College, along with car and cycle parking, following demolition of existing buildings on site.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Cambridge Place.

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Referred to speaking notes and photos tabled at committee.

     ii.          The application failed to provide adequate off-street parking as per Local Plan Policy 3/7.

   iii.          Vans could not use the covered parking area as the roof would be too low.

   iv.          Vehicles would find it difficult to access the parking area and would block the street when entering/leaving it. This would lead to a conflict between traffic and pedestrians.

    v.          The development would need a lot of maintenance, leading to lots of service vehicle trips and therefore parking space issues.

   vi.          The application did not meet Highways Authority visibility splay requirements.

 vii.          Referred to Local Plan Policy 8/9 regarding Commercial Vehicles and Servicing.

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Walsh (Petersfield Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Thanked the Agent for making some amendments in response to resident’s comments, but some changes were still required.

     ii.          Referred to Local Plan Policies 3/7 and 8/9.

   iii.          Cambridge Place is a narrow one vehicle wide access road off an arterial route.

   iv.          The new development would take away a waiting area to provide a parking space.

    v.          Medium and large vehicles would have difficulty accessing Cambridge Place, causing traffic flow issues.

   vi.          Referred to Highways Officer comments and suggested these reflected the current situation rather than a future one with the application in place.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

The use of the proposed parking area would require significant manoeuvring of vehicles within Cambridge Place and the visibility splay is restricted.  This would be likely to compromise the safety of users of Cambridge Place, therefore the development is contrary to policy 8/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

The proposed development would result in a poor entrance for future occupants in terms of conflict with servicing vehicles and in terms of the lack of a legible, safe and attractive entrance and would therefore be contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of the existing single storey garage and erection of new dwelling to the land r/o 559 Newmarket Road.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Webster Terrace.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to the reason for refusal for the 561 Newmarket Road planning application: Access located near to a pedestrian crossing.

·       The same issue applied to the planning application for 559 Newmarket Road.

·       Suggested that Highways Authority comments were inconsistent as 559 Newmarket Road was recommended for approval.

     ii.          Commented it was unfortunate the garden of 559 Newmarket Road would not adjoin Webster Terrace as it would affect his outlook.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 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 subdivision of existing property into two C4 dwellings with associated bin & cycle storage and boundary fencing.

The Principal Planning Officer brought the report up to date:

       i.          Condition 6 amended to a standard hard and soft landscaping condition.

     ii.          Referred to pre-committee amendments to recommendation:

An additional condition (No.7) should be added as follows:

Prior to the bringing into use of the development, hereby permitted, the existing access to the adopted public highway shall be permanently closed off and returned to a full face kerbed footway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 8/2 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Councillor Moore (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Raised safety concerns. The application was located near schools in an area with parking issues. Parking was pushed off-site from 55 Spalding Way onto the street and so impacted on local amenities.

     ii.          The Letting Agent’s description of the property was inaccurate.

   iii.          Separate electrical and heating supplies were required for the two dwellings.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 first floor side extension and amendment to roof creating 3 studio flats, 1 1-bedroom flat and 1 shop unit.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 two storey side extension to form one 1-bed and one 2-bed maisonette.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Ditton Fields.

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          The application would overlook/loom over her property.

     ii.          Design.

   iii.          Proximity of proposed building to fence.

   iv.          Increased use of side passage for access/egress by multiple tenants.

    v.          Increased noise from proposed tenants and construction work.

   vi.          Impact on neighbour’s amenities.

 vii.          Loss of car parking space and expected car usage increase in the area from the application.

Mr Morris (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 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 1 No two bedroom dwelling to rear to 104 Wulfstan Way.

Ms Bylie (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 two storey side/rear extension to house and change of use of open amenity area to residential garden

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Conversion of public amenity land to a private enclosed garden.

     ii.          The loss of trees/green space would impact on the character of the area and neighbour’s amenities.

   iii.          Density/design of site is more urban than suburban.

   iv.          Overbearing/overshadowing would impact on neighbour’s outlook.

    v.          The design broke covenants affecting neighbouring properties.

Mr Grange (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Holland proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting the Applicant  consider using a soft boundary treatment such as hedges when applying to discharge condition 5 (boundary treatment).

This amendment was carried unanimously.

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 officers, plus the additional amendment.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a part two storey, part single storey rear and side extension and a roof extension incorporating rear dormer.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Birdwood Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There had been various applications to develop 45 Birdwood Road opposite her, which lead to concerns regarding loss of light and privacy.

     ii.          This application (41 Birdwood Road) would raise similar concerns. Also:

·       Out of character with the area.

·       Dominant.

·       Loss of amenity.

   iii.          The ground floor element of the rear extension extends 6m from the rear wall. Neighbours’ properties were limited to 3m, which was inconsistent.

Mr Bautin (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 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 proposed new dwelling to land rear of 37 Kinnaird Way with associated landscaping and access arrangements following demolition of existing garage.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use from residential property (C3) to a bed and breakfast (C1).

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a car club informative.

This amendment was carried nem con.

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 officers and additional car club informative.

Informative: The applicant is encouraged to ensure all future visitors of the bed and breakfast are aware of the existing local car club service and location of the nearest space.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use to create 3 bed house and 1 studio flat.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 for change of use

The application sought approval for change of use from D1 surgery to A1 sandwich bar.

The Applicant’s Representative addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Holland proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting the Applicant’s Representative to pick up litter during off-peak hours.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 plus additional litter picking informative.

Informative: The applicant is encouraged to ensure that the front forecourt area outside the premises is kept tidy and to collect and dispose of any litter that arises from the use of the premises”

The Officer’s report set out details of the Public Art proposal for the University Arms Hotel following the granting of planning permission on 6 November 2013 where members sought to have the details of the Public Art once known to be brought back to Committee.

The applicants have provided a detailed Public Art Delivery Plan. The Public Art Officer has commented that this is now acceptable. In addition, Public Art Panel received a detailed update on 27 October 2015 and members of the Panel have given the project a green light rating. Informal discussions have been held with the Executive Councillor who is supportive of the new approach.

Planning Committee were recommended:

       i.          To agree to the revised Public Art Delivery Plan

     ii.          Not to seek a commuted sum for the remaining part of the 1% contribution, amounting to £83,000 of a total £235,000 (representing 1% of the capital construction costs) with a value of public art equivalent to £152,000 being delivered as part of the PADP, due to changes in the CIL regulations and to authorise officers to subsequently enter into a S106 deed of variation to agree this.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendations.