Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 30th August 2017 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|
17/0970/FUL - St Regis House PDF 276 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of student accommodation comprising 53 student rooms - clusters (incl. 2 x DDA rooms), 9 student flats and 15 student studios (Sui generis), and ancillary facilities including kitchen/communal areas, laundry room, plantroom, bin and bicycle enclosures; refurbishment and minor works to 108 Chesterton Road with the retention of 8 student rooms; and 14 residential flats (Use Class C3) comprising 1 bed and 2 bed units (following demolition of existing buildings), together with landscaping and associated infrastructure. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Chesterton Road. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Student numbers living on the site would rise from
63 to over a 100.
ii.
Current building is already the largest on the
street. this building would be even bigger and would
be located nearer the road.
iii.
Would dominant the street and cause overlooking.
iv.
Those living opposite the site would be faced with
a much larger building that would be closer than the existing building.
v.
Road currently comprises a pleasing eclectic mix OF
properties and uses.
vi.
Conference use would be problematic for residents. vii.
Approval would give a green light for further
densification in the area. Justin Bainton, the Applicant’s Agent,
addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor
Sargeant, Chesterton Ward Councillor addressed the Committee regarding the
application as follows:
i.
The design was mediocre and there was the potential
for more enhancements.
ii.
This section of Chesterton Road was predominantly
bay fronted. Victorian residential properties.
iii.
The design WAS neither a modern interpretation of
the current street scape nor presented a pleasant contrast. iv. The mass of the building would be considerably closer to the pavement than the existing building. v. Limited access route would force taxis and delivery vehicles to park on the cycle lane. vi. The residential area offered very limited parking and would result in overspill parking into nearby streets. vii. Conference use would also result in increased demand for parking spaces. Councillor Blencowe
proposed an amendment to condition 40 OF the Officer’s recommendation as
follows (struck through words deleted): The College accommodation hereby permitted
shall be occupied only by students (including their partner and immediate
family) of any of the Colleges of the University of Cambridge who are enrolled in
full-time education on a course of at least one academic year at the
University of Cambridge; or within the central block hereby permitted by
Fellows of Clare College and visiting research fellows not exceeding more than
24 no. units at any one time and for a tenancy of no longer than 3 years unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; or by delegates of
conferences or part-time students attending short courses organised by Clare
College during the summer vacation period. All occupants of the College
accommodation shall be subject to This amendment was carried nem
con. Councillor Blencowe
proposed an additional amendment regarding the colour of the bricks as follow: Prior to commencement of the development
hereby permitted (excluding demolition and enabling works), notwithstanding the
approved front and rear elevations of the Chesterton Road and Hamilton Road
buildings, revised plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority to show alternative brick detailing. Samples of
the brickwork shall be submitted for approval via condition 18. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. This amendment was carried unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1 and 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 and subject to the following amended
wording for condition 40 and additional condition: 40.
The College accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied only by students
(including their partner and immediate family) of any of the Colleges of the
University of Cambridge who are enrolled in full-time education on a
course of at least one academic year at the University of Cambridge; or within
the central block hereby permitted by Fellows of Clare College and visiting
research fellows not exceeding more than 24 no. units at any one time and for a
tenancy of no longer than 3 years unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority; or by delegates of conferences or part-time students
attending short courses organised by Clare College during the summer vacation
period. All occupants of the College accommodation shall be subject a tenancy
agreement prohibiting the occupants (except for those who are registered
disabled) from keeping a private motor vehicle within the City of Cambridge. Reason: To ensure that the proposal meets
student housing need, to ensure the amenity of future occupants is protected,
to help foster an academic community and because the impact of car parking has
been assessed on the basis of minimal car ownership of future occupants
(Cambridge Local Plan policies 7/7, 3/12, 4/13 and 8/2). 41.
Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted (excluding demolition
and enabling works), notwithstanding the approved front and rear elevations of
the Chesterton Road and Hamilton Road buildings, revised plans shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to show
alternative brick detailing. Samples of the brickwork shall be submitted
for approval via condition 18. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the agreed details.
|
|
17/0826/FUL - 2 Barrow Road PDF 161 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a
replacement dwelling. The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application on behalf of local residents. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Queried why the existing dwelling
would be demolished and replaced. Suggested this proposal was not included in
the original iteration or ex ante permission. Queried why the City Council had
contacted the Applicant to include demolition of the existing property in their
proposal. ii.
Suggested the application did not
comply with planning policy (eg character of the
area) as referenced in the Officer’s report in paragraphs 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15. iii.
Suggested that ex ante permission
was given undue weight in the Officer’s recommendation. iv.
Re-iterated that the 2015 decision
gave planning permission, not permission for demolition of the original
building. Mr Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Avery (Trumpington Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
He
wanted the integrity of the Conservation Area protected.
ii.
Suggested
that on its own, the application would not be approved, but the Officer had
recommended approval on the strength of the ex ante permission. The permission
was given before Conservation Area status was given to the location. The
existing (ex ante) permission would not be granted now the location had
Conservation Area status and
there was no reason why it should be the overriding factor now.
iii.
Referred
to the summary in the Officer’s report setting out planning considerations.
iv.
Suggested
that demolition of the existing property was not included in the original
proposal.
v.
Queried
if the ex ante permission was still relevant.
vi.
Suggested
the site was being developed, not adapted as a family home. vii.
Referred
to Queen’s Counsel comments included in residents’ representations stating that
councillors needed to exercise discretion when considering ex ante permission,
to be mindful of all issues, and not treat it as a definitive rule to follow. viii.
Referred
to paragraph 10 in the Officer’s report stating the application could (but may
not) be called in by the National Planning Casework Unit for Secretary of
State determination if approval were granted by Planning
Committee.
ix.
The
replacement building did not have sufficient merit to be implemented. The Principal Planner (TW) clarified that the change in planning
regulations regarding demolition meant that the previous description of
development for the scheme needed to be changed during its consideration to
reflect that permission also needed to include specific reference to
demolition. Officers had contacted the Agent to get the planning description
altered to reflect the change in legislation. As such, the existing permission
included demolition of the existing building. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, subject to the
conditions recommended by the officers and subject to the National Planning
Casework Unit determining whether the application should be called in for
determination by the Secretary of State. Councillor Smart
participated in the meeting discussion but not the vote as he was not present
for the Officer’s introduction. |
|
16/1691/FUL - Block B Student Castle, 1 Milton Road PDF 179 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for change of use (sui generis
- in the alternative) to allow the first and second floors of Block B and the
identified DDA room (no. G01) in Block A as aparthotel rooms
or student rooms. The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application from a local resident
representing Friends of Mitcham’s Corner. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Took issue with the argument there
was a lack of demand for student accommodation. ii.
Suggested that the Student Castle
development was not making reasonable adjustments to make the building
Disability Discrimination Act compliant. iii.
There was no wheelchair accessible
toilet. iv.
Took issue with the sole
accessible (DDA) room being shared by the student accommodation and hotel. If
one organisation used it, the other could not. v.
Suggested the Applicant was not
meeting requirements to have a clearly defined parking space for the sole use
of disabled drivers as the space was currently allocated for general use. Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. Councillor Sargeant (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
There was a need for student accommodation.
ii.
The County Council expressed the view that the
development would impose extra car parking demand in neighbouring streets.
iii.
Taxi parking was an issue. There were no attempts
to manage this by the Student Castle development.
iv.
The development was originally aimed at short term
lets. Queried if people would need car parking space(s) if they stayed for 90
days (as per the maximum length).
v.
Local residents had concerns that the Applicant
would not adhere to planning consent conditions.
vi.
People would only get a travel information pack
when they arrived (not before) which put pressure on parking facilities. The Committee: Voted to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation
for the following reasons: 1.
Loss of student accommodation with reference to the
Student Study and NPPG; 2.
Lack of commercial vehicle and servicing provision
(policy 8/9); 3.
Loss of disabled student accommodation and the appropriateness
of the location of the aparthotel wheelchair accessible room (policies 3/12(b),
3/7(m), 7/10(d)); 4.
Impact of parking from hotel visitors on the
amenity of local residents (policy 3/4); Vote split as follows: · On a show of hands
Reason 1 was lost by 2 votes to 5. · On a show of hands
Members resolved to keep Reason 2 by 4 votes to 2. · On a show of hands
Reason 3 was lost by 3 votes to 4. · On a show of hands
Members unanimously resolved to keep Reason 4. Resolved the application was contrary to the officer recommendation for reasons
2 and 4, as set out in the officer update report, as set out below: · The apart-hotel
use makes inadequate provision for access and for parking of servicing and
commercial vehicles. The current arrangements are resulting in obstructions
being caused along the main vehicular access road off Victoria Road, which is
also used by residents in Corona Road to access their garages. The proposal
would potentially exacerbate this conflict and is therefore contrary to policy
8/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).
· The apart-hotel
use generates car parking from customers staying and accessing the site which
is causing obstructions to the internal access way and putting pressure on the
surrounding streets. The apart-hotel use is generating additional traffic and
movements that are having a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of
the local residents in terms of on-street car parking and noise disturbance.
The apart-hotel use is therefore contrary to policies 3/4 and 8/2 of the Cambridge
Local Plan (2006). |
|
17/0753/FUL - 8A Babraham Road PDF 88 KB Minutes: The Committee received
an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for a part two-storey with part
single-storey rear extension and single-storey side extension. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Babraham Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Requested the decision be
postponed to consider the validity of figures in the light report and error
shown in Appendix 3 of the second version. There was no change to the skyline
visible through internal doors (or increased light) as shown in photos in the
Objector’s latest submission. ii.
It was not possible to contact the
Applicant’s Consultant to obtain information on how report conclusions were
made based on the figures included in the report. iii.
Asked for an adequate explanation
of light figures before planning permission be considered. Dr Rajan (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Moore
(Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The apparent loss of light to the semi-detached
neighbour was a concern.
ii.
Queried the discrepancy in figures between versions
1 and 2 of the light report. a.
Asked if this was a material consideration. b.
Requested a rule of thumb estimate from planners as
to whether the light loss would have a significant impact on neighbours. The Principal Planner (NB) responded to points made:
i.
The Objectors had invited parties to visit their
property to gain more accurate information that could help inform a further
examination of the daylight/sunlight assessment.
ii.
Officers did not consider this was necessary as
they were confident the assessment conclusions already indicated that the
impact on light was acceptable. Officers considered that further refinement of
the input data would not materially alter the conclusions of the assessment.
They had been undertaken by an accredited person in accordance with BRE
guidance.
iii.
There is no policy requirement for proposals to
comply with BRE guidance. Members were advised that it is guidance and just one
of the material considerations to take into account in assessing the proposal.
iv.
45 degree guidance had been met so a full
daylight/sunlight assessment would not normally be requested. It was done so at
the request of a Member.
v.
Alongside the assessment, the extant planning
permission was also a material planning consideration. The proposal as revised
does extend further into the garden at single storey but it is also moved away
from the boundary resulting in a net change in impact that was not considered
to be significant. The Objector asked for it to be minuted that
the Chair did not allow him to respond before the Committee went onto vote. 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. |
|
17/0801/FUL - 454 Milton Road PDF 74 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a residential development containing four 1-bedroom flats
along with cycle parking and associated landscaping following demolition of existing
buildings at rear of site - land to the rear of 454 Milton Road. The Planner referred
to pre-committee amendments to recommendation as set out on the amendment
sheet. 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 with the amendment below: Approval subject to the conditions listed in
the report (which includes the first 3 of the conditions recommended by EHO),
the 6 standard contaminated land conditions (Please note that these would need
to be inserted as condition nos. 3 – 8 in the decision notice) and the
following bespoke condition: · The residential
properties, hereby permitted, shall not be brought into use until the noise
insulation scheme and mitigation requirements have been implemented in
accordance with the details within the Cass Allen noise assessment dated 23
August 2017 (ref: RP01-17542). The development shall thereafter be maintained
in accordance with these details. (Reason – To protect the amenity of the
adjoining properties) |
|
17/1402/FUL - 19 Fortescue Road PDF 32 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application
sought approval for part two storey, part single storey rear extensions 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. |
|
17/0927/FUL - Jenny Wren, 80 Campkin Road PDF 155 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for full planning permission. The
application sought approval for a new building comprising of a Public House at
ground floor with nine residential units on the upper floors (two 1xbed units
& seven studio units) along with car and cycle parking and associated
landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings. The
Senior Planner (MH) proposed a new condition to require the submission and
approval of a scheme of works for substantial completion of the public house
prior to demolition of the existing public house. This
amendment was carried nem
con. Councillor
Price (Kings Hedges Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee
about the application. The
representation covered the following issues: Speaking in objection to
the application on behalf of a resident of Beales Way
who raised the following concerns: i.
Overlooking. ii.
Loss of privacy. iii.
Lack of parking and impact on
local streets. Speaking as a Ward
Councillor: iv.
Planning policy was in place in
the city to protect pubs. v.
Referred to historic planning and
officer advice to facilitate this. vi.
Referred to paragraph #8.45 in the
Officer’s report which seemed to ignore safeguards to protect the pub facility. vii.
Took issue with the application
and suitability of proposed flats as homes. viii.
Took issue with the design of the
building and suggested it was low quality so did not meet planning policy. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 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 plus the following additional
condition: Prior to the demolition of the public house, a scheme of works for the
substantial completion of the proposed public house, including a phasing plan
for its provision, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The public house shall thereafter be constructed in
accordance with the approved scheme of works and phasing plan, unless an
alternative phasing plan is otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: In order that the public house is physically replaced on the
site to meet the day-to-day needs of the community, NPPF paragraph 70, Interim
Planning Policy Guidance on the Protection of Public Houses in the City of
Cambridge (October 2012). |
|
17/0798/S73 - Brethren Meeting Room, Radegund Road PDF 57 KB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73
application to vary condition 6 attached to 15/1499/FUL dated 16/02/2016 to
allow the use of the annexe building only on Saturdays between 9am and 9pm, on
Sundays between 10am and 5pm, and between 9am and 5pm Mondays to Fridays
(except for storage). The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for Section 73 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. |
|
17/1080/FUL - 15 Rutherford Road PDF 94 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition
of the existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling. Mr Dadge
(Applicant’s Agent) 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. |
|
17/1219/FUL - 77 and 77A Shelford Road PDF 127 KB Minutes: The Senior Planner
(MH) referred to pre-committee amendments to recommendation set out on the
amendment sheet. The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought
approval for the erection of seven residential units following demolition of
the existing bungalow and workshops, including access, car parking, bin and
cycle stores, and landscaping. 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 pre-committee amendment to condition 25 as set out
below: Condition 25 should be re-worded as follows: The specification and position of fencing, or any other measures to be
taken for the protection of any trees from damage during the course of
development, shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural
Implications Assessment dated July 2016 and the Tree Protection Plan drawing
'TIP 209A’ before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the
site for the purpose of development (including demolition). The agreed means of
protection shall be retained on site until all equipment, and surplus materials
have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area
protected in accordance with this condition, and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made without the prior
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the retention of the trees on the neighbouring sites.
(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11, 3/12 and 4/4). |
|
17/0704/FUL - 23 Kingston Street PDF 47 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a roof
extension incorporating rear dormer, replacement of sash windows with new sash
windows and retrospective pitched roof to ground floor rear extension replacing
flat roof. Mr Smith (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. |
|
17/0966/FUL - Land r/o 28 Anglers Way PDF 84 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of the existing store building and construction
of single storey dwelling. 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. |
|
17/0642/FUL - 150 Coldhams Lane PDF 86 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection
of 1.5 Storey dwelling with frontage onto Cromwell Road and the retention of
two parking spaces for 150 and 150a Coldhams Lane. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to refuse the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer report. |
|
17/0838/FUL - 44 Clifton Road PDF 87 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for change of use from
existing B2 (General Industrial) to D1 (Museum) with administrative, retail and
food and drink space. Dr James (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use
in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|
17/0957/FUL - 190-192 Mill Road and 2B Cockburn Street PDF 88 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for reconfiguration and extensions, incorporating dormer
windows, and alterations to roof of building to provide 12 residential units (net
increase of 9 units) along with bin and cycle storage. The Committee: Resolved (4 votes to 4 – and on the Chair’s
casting vote) to reject the
officer recommendation to approve the application. Resolved (by 4
votes to 2) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason: The proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site
by virtue of cramped and small living spaces for future occupants and a
constrained external living environment and as such would fail to secure a good
standard of amenity for future occupants, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan
(2006) policies 3/7 and 3/14. After the vote
Councillor Nethsingha left the committee for another commitment. |
|
17/0963/S73 - Land r/o 183-187 Cherry Hinton Road PDF 91 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73
application to vary planning permission reference 08/0125/FUL (as amended by
08/0125/NMA1 to add approved plans condition) for demolition of 187 Cherry
Hinton Road and erection of three storey building consisting of 5 flats
together with the erection of 4 semi-detached three storey town houses to allow
the addition of dormers to the rear houses. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from a local resident. The representation covered the following
issues: i.
Referred to comments from the Council
Planning Officer's Report for 08/0125/FUL: “Replacement
of the high-level roof lights with dormer windows offer no advantage to the
internal amenities of the houses and for this reason I see little prospect of
future occupiers wishing to remove the roof lights and install dormer windows.” ii.
The last application was
over turned at appeal but the developer got what they wanted. iii.
The application windows
would impact on the Objector’s privacy and amenity. iv.
Expressed no confidence
that the developer would adhere to conditions. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 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. |
|
EN/0017/17 - 146 Mowbray Road PDF 61 KB Minutes: The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement
action. The report sought authority to serve one Breach of Condition Enforcement
Notice and one Breach of Condition notice directed at remedying the harm caused
as a result of the breach occurring. The breaches result in an unauthorised
additional separate unit of accommodation being created and the recommendation
looks to ensure compliance in the short term and onwards. The Committee: Resolved (7 votes to 0 – unanimous of those
present) to accept the
officer recommendation to:
i.
Authorise an enforcement notice under S172 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a
breach of planning control within the last four years, involving the
unauthorised material change of use of the Premises into a large scale House in
Multiple Occupation, (Sui Generis), the unauthorised change of use of part of
the ground floor of the main building at the premises as a separate
self-contained unit of accommodation and the unauthorised use of the
outbuilding at the premises as a separate self-contained unit of accommodation,
specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in
paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.4.
ii.
Authorise the Head of Planning Services (after
consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the
enforcement notice.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services
(after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s
powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the
enforcement notice. |