Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Nethsingha

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Pippas	16/85/FUL	Personal interest as works in the hospitality industry. Was not present for the consideration of this item.
Councillor Tunnicliffe	16/87/FUL & 16/88/FUL	Personal & Prejudicial: Conservator of the River Cam.   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote.
Councillor Hipkin	16/91/FUL	Personal & Prejudicial: As a County Councillor, he was intimately connected with the issue and already made comments on public record.   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote.

 

Minutes of the meetings of the 6 and 27 of April 2016 to follow.  

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of part two and part three storey block to create ten new apartments, , including alterations to parking layout and soft landscaping works, within the existing Crossway Gardens complex.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of a nearby property.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Proximity and scale of the property was out of keeping with the area.

    ii.        Building would be within 6 meters of a building of local interest.

   iii.        Building would be large and ugly.

  iv.        Would result in loss of light and amenity value of garden.

   v.        Loss of privacy in garden.

  vi.        Density and scale would be overbearing.

 vii.        Would increase on street parking which would be dangerous.

 

Paul Watson the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Minor Material Amendment by variation of condition 2 attached to planning permission reference

15/0906/FUL to allow for removal of lower basement and retention of single basement to provide 79 car parking spaces and 384 cycle parking spaces, internal alterations, provision of refuse store and management suite and 248 cycle parking spaces at ground level and alterations to elevations, landscaping and roof plant.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        As the area has evolved, the heritage of the area has been lost.

    ii.        Application offers an opportunity for members to reconsider the area as a whole.

   iii.        Office blocks should be in a more appropriate place.

  iv.        Preserve old Cambridge for the future.

 

Mike Derbyshire, applicant’s agent, 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.

Councillor Pippas was not present for the consideration of the following application.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of Jupiter House and the construction of a new office building comprising

5,654 sqm (GIA) of Class B1(a) floorspace including ancillary accommodation/facilities with a single basement of 1,715 sqm (GIA) providing 37 car parking spaces, with associated plant and new sub-station, 193 cycle parking spaces at street level and two options for provision of access to the development and for hard and soft landscaping

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the proprietor of the Centennial Hotel

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Proximity of the development to the hotel would be detrimental to the business.

    ii.        Too close to boundary.

   iii.        Would be overbearing and overcrowding of area.

  iv.        Loss of privacy.

   v.        Loss of light.

  vi.        Loss of amenity to the users of the hotel.

 

Mike Derbyshire, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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 demolition of existing structures and the proposed development of a new B1 office and research building with associated structures, including new substation and bin stores, ancillary plant, cycle stores and hard and soft landscaping (cross boundary application)

 

Claire Frost, the applicant’s agent 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.

 

 

Councillor Tunnicliffe withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval to change from residential to commercial A3 use (restaurants and cafes), erection of extensions and internal and external alterations to the listed building.

 

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

·       A representative from Jesus Green Association.

·       A local resident.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Concern over lack of consultation. Public consultation on the change of use had been bypassed by using the planning system.

     ii.          Concern over (delivery) logistics and waste arrangements.

   iii.          The proposal reduced the amount of housing in the area.

   iv.          The application for change of use was made by the tenant not the owner. Activity would spill out onto the lock. Use of the lock should be controlled through the Master Plan. Private commercial activity outside of the City Council’s control should not occur on Jesus Green.

    v.          Queried why under-use of the building (in the application) was not a material consideration.

 

Mr Martin (Applicant) and Mr Godfrey (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The City Council protected housing through Local Plan Policy 5/4. The application did not meet the 4 criteria under this policy to justify a change in use.

a.    The Lock House was already in use as a house in multiple occupation.

b.    It was suitable for habitation.

c.    Tenants were happy with current privacy arrangements and amenity space.

d.    The Lock House was constructed for a housing purpose, there was insufficient reason for it to become a community café.

     ii.          The Lock House provides a surveillance opportunity over the nearby open space to deter anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Gillespie (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          He had withdrawn his previous objection as waste disposal arrangements were now acceptable and local food would be sourced for the café.

     ii.          There was a strong need for a community café and meeting rooms in the area.

   iii.          There was no comparison with the Mid Summer House situation.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason:

 

The proposal will result in a loss of residential accommodation and is therefore contrary to policy 5/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

Councillor Tunnicliffe withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received an application for listed building consent.

 

The application sought approval for erection of extensions and internal and external alterations.

 

The Committee received representations as noted under minute item 16/87/Plan.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the application for listed building consent 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 from retail (A1) to student residential accommodation together with associated external ground floor alterations.

 

The Planning Assistant referred to the amendment sheet which set out 6 addition conditions relating to contaminated land.

 

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 conditions on the amendment sheet.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of an existing retail unit, associated workshop, storage and office and erection of 8 flats, together with associated visitor parking, access, landscaping, drainage and infrastructure works.

 

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.

 

Councillor Hipkin withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

Councillor Blencowe took the Chair.

 

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change from Office (B1a) to Student Accommodation (Sui Generis).

 

The Principal Planner asked for delegated authority to address noise issues set out on the amendment sheet.

 

Mr Robson (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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 additional delegated Officer authority to approve noise mitigation works.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change from Retail (Class A1) to Residential (Class C3), to form 1x 1 bed and 1x 2 bed apartments, along with ancillary operational development.

 

The Planning Officer referred to a pre-committee amendment to Recommendation set out on the amendment sheet:

 

Condition 4 should be reworded as follows:

 

“Prior to occupation of the development, facilities for the 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)”

 

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 amended conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden.

 

Councillor Sinnott (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Anticipated the outbuilding would be used for music practice/performance. Asked for current/future area use and acoustics to be investigated for noise disturbance.

     ii.          The proposed building would be close to the boundary wall and double the height of the wall, so would not be screened by the walnut tree. The outbuilding should be sited away from the wall and have higher screening to mitigate its overbearing presence.

   iii.          Paragraph 8.2 of the Officer’s report states “There are other outbuildings in the rear gardens of properties along Tenison Avenue and Lyndewode Road in the wider area.” The outbuilding in 32 Lyndewode Road backs onto a passageway and so should not be considered a precedent or a like-for-like comparison.

   iv.          Residents raised concerns about the walnut tree as a result of the application. They thought its welfare may be impeded, but the affects would not show for some time.

 

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 demolition of existing dilapidated warehouse and construction of new dwelling on the site.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a St Philips Road resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Did not object to the removal of the warehouse.

     ii.          Expressed concern over the accuracy of plans, specifically boundary and building dimensions. Asked for these to be monitored through condition.

   iii.          The current warehouse was bigger than neighbouring properties, the extension will enlarge it further. Queried the justification for the increase in size.

   iv.          Concern over neighbours’ amenities.

 

Mr Brinkley (Applicant’s Agent) 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 the erection of a single detached building to accommodate 5 independent bedsits/flats.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Officer’s report updated members on the contributions required for mitigation of transport impacts relating to CB1, 30 Station Road (15/1522/FUL.

 

Members were recommended to accept the required transport contributions outlined in the table in paragraph 2.1 of the Officer’s report for inclusion in the S106 agreement to address the transport impact mitigation in respect of this application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendation.