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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: All expected Members were present. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes To follow Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the 10th January 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||
17/1799/FUL - Proposed Cavendish III laboratory PDF 607 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for Development of 37,160 sqm for D1 academic
floor space to accommodate the relocation of the Cavendish Laboratory, namely;
all associated infrastructure including drainage, utilities, landscape and
cycle parking; strategic open space to the south and west of the new Cavendish;
modifications to JJ Thomson Avenue to provide disabled parking and changes to
road surface materials; alterations to the existing access to Madingley Road to the north west to enable servicing; and
demolition of Merton Hall Farmhouse and removal of existing Vet School access
road from JJ Thomson Avenue. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. Professor Richard Phillips addressed the Committee on behalf on the
applicant in support of the application. Matthew Danish addressed the Committee on behalf of West Cambridge
Active Travel in support of the application and stated the following:
i.
Welcomed the plan.
ii.
Thanked the applicant for the consultation and
engagement.
iii.
Hoped to have further opportunities to engage as
the project progressed. The committee
expressed concerns about the order that applications for the wider West
Cambridge site were being considered. Officers confirmed that although the
outline application for the wider site had not yet come before the Planning
Committee for determination, this application could be considered as a
stand-alone application as, in the officer’s view, it was not prejudicial to the determination
of the wider outline application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 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, subject to the
completion of a s.106 agreement and subject to the conditions recommended by
the officers, as amended by pre-committee amendments set out on the amendment
sheet. |
|||||||||||||
16/1904/OUT - Ridgeons, 75 Cromwell Road PDF 381 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
outline planning permission. The application
sought outline
permission for the erection of up 245 dwellings, including affordable housing,
a nursery and/or community facility, open space, car parking, cycle parking and
associated works following the demolition of all existing buildings on the
site. The
Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a late request for a statement to be read out in
objection to the application from a local resident. The Chair disallowed the
statement due to the late submission. However, the Officer was asked to cover
the issue of existing properties in close proximity to the boundary of the
proposed site in her presentation, which was the substance of the late
submission. Paul Belton (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 as amended by pre-committee amendments set out on the amendment sheet. Also subject to completion of S106 Agreement, and delegated authority to confirm either contributions or no contributions towards healthcare facilities following consultation with consultees. |
|||||||||||||
17/1886/FUL - 13 Brookside PDF 137 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for
alterations and extensions including the addition of 2no. dormers
to the front elevation; 1no. dormer to the rear elevation; an upwards extension
to the rear closet wing; a new access from the ground floor level to the rear
garden via an external staircase; a double height rear infill extension
including lowering of the basement floor; internal alterations to the building
layout; and the demolition and erection of a new garage. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Residents had no great concerns about
the original scheme; but did about the current one as the proposed structure
was larger, deeper and blocked people’s views. ii.
Would be happy to keep the void in
the proposed plan. iii.
Expressed the following specific
concerns: a.
Sash window and the mass of brickwork
around it was out of character with the area. b.
Loss of privacy and amenity. c.
Overlooking, which
would not be mitigated by the privacy screen. d.
Loss of light. e.
Designs had been submitted and
withdrawn various times, now residents were confused what proposals were going
forward. f.
Suggested the proposed plans
contained errors and what had been built did not match approved plans. Mr Wortley (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor
Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application. The representation covered the following issues: The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Expressed concern about the application as work on
the house did not conform to the approved submitted plan.
ii.
Residents had not objected to the previous
application as they did not think the (now approved) plans would lead to loss
of privacy/amenity.
iii.
The (setback) basement door and privacy screen
would exacerbate the loss of light and sense of enclosure for neighbours.
Tabled a document to illustrate this point. The Planning Officer confirmed
information shown was already in the public domain.
iv.
The proposed planting between the staircase and wall
would exacerbate the light loss issue unless it was continuously pruned.
v.
Neighbours had concerns about overlooking. They
would have strongly objected if the current application had been submitted in
2015.
vi.
The Applicant appeared to have been badly advised
on building design by his builder, but this should not affect neighbours by
Planning Committee’s acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation to approve this
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. Members voted on reasons for refusal: · Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to accept: Impact on neighbour of loss of
light and sense of enclosure due to the privacy screen, basement extension and
staircase. · Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept: Impact of design of rear
projection. · Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) not to accept: Block like rear dormer window. · Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) not to accept: Front dormer window not built in
accordance with approved plan. Unanimously
resolved to refuse the application
contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: The proposed single storey basement extension, external staircase and
its screen would overshadow the basement kitchen door and windows of No. 14
Brookside and its rear patio area. It would also appear overbearing and
enclosing when viewed from within this kitchen and from the patio. As such the
proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of the
occupiers of No. 14 and is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed extensions by virtue of the heavy design and form of the
rear brick ground floor element would appear discordant and incongruous in
relation to adjoining properties. It would neither preserve nor enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the quality
and character of this Building of Local Interest. As such the proposal is
contrary to policies 3/4, 3/14, 4/11 and 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006
and the National Planning Policy Framework. |
|||||||||||||
17/1848/FUL - 87 Histon Road PDF 84 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection
of a 1.5 storey 2 bed dwelling to the rear of 87 Histon
Road with access from North Street, with integrated store for bins and bikes. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from a resident of Canterbury Close. The representation covered the following concerns: i.
Dominating design that would be
out of context/character with the area. ii.
Loss of privacy and light. iii.
Overlooking. iv.
Lack of scale drawings.
Inaccuracies in submitted documents. v.
Exacerbation of existing access
and parking issues. vi.
Sewerage and refuse collection
arrangements. Councillor O’Reilly
(Abbey Ward Councillor, speaking on behalf of Councillor Todd-Jones) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The property would be 2 storeys not 1.5 as listed.
ii.
The development would be in a Conservation Area, on
an unadopted (highway) track.
iii.
The application had no parking space,
this would exacerbate existing parking issues and displace others in an already
constrained area.
iv.
Suggested the design would: a.
Dominate the streetscene. b.
Lead to a loss of light and overlooking. c.
Not meet Local Plan criteria 3/10 (subdivision of
existing plot, access and parking) or 3/12 (design of new buildings). 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. |
|||||||||||||
17/1453/FUL - 29 Fernlea Road PDF 85 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
retrospective planning permission. The application
sought approval for a single storey front extension, part single storey, part
two storey rear extension, first floor side extension and change of use to 8-person
HMO (House in Multiple Occupation). Mr Khan (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Ashton
(Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to #2.2 in the Officer’s report. Residents
had concerns about how the City Council handled planning applications
concerning this address since 2011.
ii.
Parking/access.
iii.
Noise and overlooking concerns.
iv.
The house would be in multiple occupation.
v.
Intermittent building works occurred over several
years. Residents were unclear what the design would look like when completed.
vi.
The design was out of context with the area. vii.
Builders working on 29 Fernlea
Road trespassed on neighbour’s property. viii.
The 29 Fernlea Road
property encroached on neighbour’s land.
ix.
The Applicant was not building to approved plans (#2.2 in the Officer’s report).
x.
Officers had been on-site and found unreported
building work (referred to enforcement investigation #2.4 in the Officer’s
report). Residents were concerned this work was not included in the current
application.
xi.
Referred to #6.1 in the Officer’s report: “The
development may therefore impose additional parking demands upon the on-street
parking on the surrounding streets and, whilst this is unlikely to result in
any significant adverse impact upon highway safety, there is potentially an
impact upon residential amenity which the Planning Authority may wish to
consider”. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason: The scale of the extension has an overbearing and enclosing impact on
the occupant of the adjoining property No. 27 and therefore adversely impacts
on their amenity. As such, the proposal
is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). |
|||||||||||||
17/1793/FUL - 159 Vinery Road PDF 135 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition
of existing buildings and construction of two new buildings containing 6 x 1
bedroom apartments and 3 x 2 bedroom apartments. Provision of on-site parking
and bin & bike storage Mr 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. |
|||||||||||||
17/1864/FUL - Scudamores Mill Lane PDF 70 KB
Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for replacement of
ticket office and pontoons. The Planner updated her report to amend text in the table (#8.21) on P321:
“The addition of the ramp will significantly improve access to the river for Mr Wood (Applicant’s Representative) 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. Councillor Sarris withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate
in the discussion or decision making. |
|||||||||||||
17/1865/FUL - Scudamores Quayside PDF 61 KB
Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition
of the existing ticket offices and pontoons, erection of replacement ticket
offices and pontoons Mr Wood (Applicant’s Representative) 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. Councillor Sarris withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate
in the discussion or decision making. |
|||||||||||||
17/1937/S73 - Carlyle House 20 Devonshire Road PDF 88 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a S73 application to vary condition 2 of ref no: 16/1281/FUL (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) with new drawings to show
retrospective and proposed alterations to roof design, increase in height,
alteration to south elevation, reduction in height of the boundary wall and
addition of windows and rooflights. Mr Mahon (Applicant’s) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the S73
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. |
|||||||||||||
17/1909/FUL - 54A Mill Road PDF 80 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for retrospective planning
permission. The application sought approval for a first floor rear extension to
create four self-contained studio flats and proposed recessing of part of first
floor rear wall and relocation of ducts. The Senior Planner updated his report to amend condition 9. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Mill Street. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Expected disturbance due to
courtyard noise during the afternoon and evening. ii.
High velocity extractor fans would
be noisy. Welcomed monitoring of the impact on neighbours. iii.
Queried if any mitigation factors
were possible. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the
application for retrospective 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 condition
no.9 being re-worded as follows: Prior to occupation of development, a layout plan showing the storage of
facilities for waste including waste for recycling and composting shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The layout plan shall identify the specific
positions of where wheeled bins will be stationed. Details of the security/
access of the bin store shall also be provided. The approved facilities shall
be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be
retained for their intended use thereafter. Reason - To provide an acceptable living
environment for future occupiers (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 4/13 and
5/2). |
|||||||||||||
17/1838/FUL - 40 Grantchester Road PDF 57 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for full planning permission. The
application sought approval for the erection of a single storey extension
to the side and rear. The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to details on the
amendment sheet: Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Due to the proximity of the proposal to the
boundary, I consider that the following condition limiting construction hours
should be attached. No construction work or demolition work
shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours:
0800 hours and 1800 hours on Monday to Friday, 0800 hours and 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) The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Grantchester Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Expressed concern that the extra
build extended almost up to the boundary. ii.
Said the Case Officer confirmed in
her report that the relationship between the two dwellings was very tight. iii.
Expressed concern about: a.
Being in a tunnel effect and
related sense of enclosure. b.
Siting. c.
Mass. d.
Unattractive design. iv.
Suggested the development did not
meet Local Plan policies 3/14 (visual dominance), 3/1 (sustainable development),
3/11 (design of external spaces) and 3/4 (responding to context). The Chair read a statement submitted by the Applicant’s Agent who was unable
to attend the Committee. The Agent’s statement supported 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. |
|||||||||||||
17/1926/FUL - 8 & 8A Oak Tree Avenue PDF 85 KB Minutes: This item was deferred as the Applicant’s Agent registered to speak and then withdrew when informed by Officers there were no Objectors who also wished to speak. This was incorrect. Councillors agreed to defer the item to another committee date when all parties would have an opportunity to speak. Councillor Sarris left the meeting to attend another commitment. |
|||||||||||||
17/1955/FUL - 95 Cherry Hinton Road PDF 70 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for full planning permission. The
application sought approval for the erection of a roof extension including
raising the ridge height, a rear dormer, an additional front roof light and a
change of use of the property from a guesthouse to a large scale HMO which
would accommodate 12 persons. 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. |
|||||||||||||
EN/0054/17 - 59 Hills Avenue PDF 87 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action. This report
detailed an alleged unauthorised change of use of a domestic residential
dwelling into a commercial short-term visitor accommodation letting use at the
premises. The report recommended serving one change
of use Enforcement Notice directed at remedying the harm caused as a result of
the breach occurring. The recommendation looks to ensure compliance in the
short term and onwards. The Planning Enforcement Officer updated his report by referring to
details on the amendment sheet: Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Authority is sought to serve an enforcement
notice as recommended in the committee report or to serve an amended notice
removing any steps no longer required due to compliance. The Committee: Resolved (by 7
votes to 0) 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 ten years, namely without planning
permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to Aparthotel
style serviced short- term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at the
premises, specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out
in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4 of the Officer’s report, for the reasons contained in
paragraph 9.5.
ii.
Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development
(after consultation with the Head of Legal Practise) to draft and issue the
enforcement notice.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and
Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to
exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of
non-compliance with the enforcement notice. |