Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

Item	Councillor	Interest
16/154/Plan	Nethsingha	Personal: Applicant was a friend and political associate.
16/154/Plan	Tunnacliffe	Personal: Applicant was a friend and political associate.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 31^st August 2016. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 August 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The Senior Planner referred to additional conditions set out on the amendment sheet.

 

The application sought approval for a residential development comprising 8 x 3 bedroom houses, 5x1 bedroom apartment and 1 c 2 bedroom apartment, formation of access including demolition of 74 Perne Road, landscaping, open spaces, drainage and supporting infrastructure.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Various objections had been raised by local residents.

     ii.          Expressed specific concerns about:

·       Site scale and density.

·       The application conflicted with Local Plan policy 3/10.

·       Proximity of new buildings to existing neighbours.

·       Design out of character with the neighbourhood.

·       Overshadowing.

   iii.          The overlooking issue had been somewhat mitigated but not totally overcome.

   iv.          Queried if the site was ‘brown field’ as stated by the Applicant.

 

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

 

Councillor Herbert (Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There were not many applications like this one in the city, the Committee needed to consider if the level of development was appropriate.

     ii.          Expressed concern that there was overdevelopment of site, specifically caused by the inclusion of the apartment block.

   iii.          Expected traffic movements to be higher than suggested in the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Queried if the road junction design was appropriate, a single lane entry would be safer.

    v.          Queried if the landscaping was practicable and if the trees would act as a buffer between new and existing properties.

   vi.          Expressed concern over the loss of amenity space (gardens) and overlooking.

 vii.          Queried if parking space provision was appropriate.

 

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 in the main report plus additional conditions 39 and 40 set out on the amendment sheet, and subject to completion of S106 Agreement.

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 will follow the order of the agenda.

 

This application was withdrawn.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the retrospective change of use from dwelling (C3) to a 7 bed HMO (Sui Generis).

 

The Planning Officer referred to an additional condition on the amendment sheet and also verbally updated the Committee on two further additional conditions:

 

1.   Within 3 months from the date of this planning permission hereby granted, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.  These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

 

2.   The room labelled Common Room on approved drawing number SRD/7437/07/15 Sheet 2 shall not be used as a bedroom.

 

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the occupants of No.5 Moore Close, Cambridge and neighbouring properties and to comply with policies 3/4, 3/7, 5/7 and 4/13 of the Local Plan 2006.

 

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 contained within the amendment sheet and the two conditions verbally updated at the Committee meeting.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of two new buildings to provide 2no. maisonettes and 3no. 1 bed flats together with bin store & cycle store and landscaping.

 

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 including the additional condition below:

 

1.   The vertical louvers serving the bedrooms of houses 1 and 2 (drawing no.PL(21)01 Rev A), and flats 2 and 3 (drawing no.PL(21)02 Rev A), shall be implemented, fixed in place and not removed at any time.

 

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/10 and 3/12).

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for part two storey part single storey rear extensions and shed in rear garden.

 

Angus Jackson (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 construction of a two storey building containing four studio apartments.

 

Angus Jackson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of 4 existing storage garages to the rear of the site. The subsequent construction of 5 new dwellings and alterations to an existing 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 outline planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling and formation of new access.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) 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 6 dwellings (following the demolition of nos. 243, 245 and 247 Milton Road) together with car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

 

The Planning Officer clarified the reason for condition 8 (surface water drainage) which has been missed from the officer’s report as follows:

 

Reason: To ensure adequate surface water drainage (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/16).

 

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 including the reason for condition 8 which had been verbally updated at the meeting, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the redevelopment of three existing residential flats and demolition of commercial workshop to create 6 new residential units with associated cycle and bin storage and new landscaped amenity spaces.

 

The Planning Officer verbally updated the wording of condition 16 as follows:

 

Prior to occupation of development full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

 

 

The 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 and condition 16 which had been updated at Committee.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a rear roof extension incorporating rear dormer and single storey rear extension.

 

Michael Bullivant (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

A written statement from Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) was read out to the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

i.             A number of houses in Romsey had been allowed to build box dormers on the rear of properties despite being in a Conservation Area.

ii.            To permit the development would enable local residents whose families were expanding to stay in the area.

iii.           City Planners had turned down some box dormer applications on the rear of houses and they were wrong to do so.

iv.          Wanted family accommodation to be provided for people who worked in Cambridge.

v.            Preventing individuals from developing their homes was detrimental to the community.

vi.          Asked that the development was permitted.  

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to part approve and part refuse 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 a section 73 application to vary a condition.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 20 (deliveries) of permission C/96/1014, approved under appeal decision T/APP/Q0505/A/98/301055 to extend delivery hours to 0600 and 2300 on Monday to Saturdays (including Bank and Public Holidays) and 0900 and 1900 on Sundays.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the application to vary condition 20 (deliveries) of permission C/96/1014 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 rear two storey extension and rear garden studio.

 

A resident of Mill Street addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The gutter would be blocked in, so the objector would be unable to clean it.

    ii.        Referred to paragraph 3.4.1 of the Cambridge Local Plan, which stated that extensions should have a successful relationship with neighbouring properties.

   iii.        Referred to Policy 3.7 of the Cambridge Local Plan and the design of the development.

  iv.        Commented that the boundary line was incorrectly drawn on the planning drawings.

   v.        Commented that the Studio building being in a Conservation Area would dominate and increase disturbance.

  vi.        Noted the condition about the separate letting of the studio.

 vii.        The extension did not retain adequate bin storage. 

 

Marek Sekowski (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

i.             Endorse comments made about the guttering being inaccessible.

ii.            Policy wording of the Local Plan was relevant; the development will create a difficult area for maintenance purposes.

iii.           It was a gross overdevelopment of the site.

iv.          The alleyway was very narrow and it would be difficult to manoeuvre bikes and bins down it.

v.           The back of the building and the outbuilding had outward opening doors; it would not be possible to store bins and bikes.

vi.          Expressed concern regarding the studio outbuilding becoming a separate dwelling.

 

The Committee:

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) to approve part of the application for the two storey extension for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers with the additional condition:

 

There should be no collections from or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0800 hours and 1800 hours on 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)

 

On a show of hands the recommendation to approve the rear garden studio was lost by 2 votes to approve to 6 votes against.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse part of the application for the rear garden studio for the following reason:

 

By virtue of its footprint and scale, the proposed garden studio would unduly enclose and dominate the outlook from the adjacent property 4 Mill Street and provide an enclosed and dominated outlook and cramped amenity space for the existing property 2 Mill Street. As such, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/12 in that it would fail to have a positive impact on its setting and would be contrary to NPPF (2012) guidance paragraph 17.