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: Apologies were received from Councillors McQueen and Nethsingha.
Councillor Holt was present as the alternate. |
||
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 6th June 2018 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||
17/2157/FUL - 54-58 Chesterton Road PDF 196 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of former HSBC
bank building and redevelopment of site
to provide 2no. ground floor commercial units comprising
Use Class A1 (shop), A2 (financial and professional) - in the alternative, with
8no. apartments, cycle parking, and associated
infrastructure. The Committee noted
the amendment sheet. Nick Green (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Sargeant
(West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and
made the following comments:
i.
Frontage to Chesterton Road was acceptable and
sympathetic to character of area.
ii.
Rear of property was problematic.
iii.
In-fill of entire plot was overdevelopment. iv.
Densification of the area was problematic.
v.
Similar applications in the area had been rejected. vi.
Rear access was very limited. The Committee
discussed the application and were unclear on the status of the existing
basement. The access to the basement was visible on the plan but no details
were included in the application. With the Chair’s
permission, the applicant’s agent confirmed that basement area would be divided
in line with the proposed retail units. Full details were included with the
application but were not included in committee report. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 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. |
||
18/0164/FUL - Land to the North of Cherry Hinton Caravan and Motorhome Club PDF 151 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for relocation of agricultural access onto Limekiln
Road. The
Committee noted the amendment sheet.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Site on edge of the city and part of green
boundary.
ii.
Questioned the agricultural use of the land.
iii.
Land was not used and had been the subject of a
previous planning application. iv.
As planned usage was unknown it was not possible to
assess vehicle numbers using the new gates.
v.
Applications lacked detail. vi.
Conditions were unenforceable. Councillor Ashton
(Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and
made the following comments:
i.
Applicant had previously applied to build on the
site.
ii.
Applicant had access point that was never used.
iii.
Over year site had been used for various
agricultural uses. iv.
Site forms a safeguard to the city boundary.
v.
Application was the first step towards a housing
application. vi.
Council was ignoring the Landscape Officer’s
advice. vii.
This small green area needed to be protected. The Committee
suggested that a stronger condition was needed regarding lighting to the site.
This was agreed nem con. 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, subject to the
conditions recommended by the officers and subject to amended wording to
condition 11 as below: 11. Prior to the installation of any external
lighting, a detailed scheme for low level lighting to the access only shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent detriment to
foraging bats (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/15). To protect the character of the area and
residential amenity (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4, 3/7, 4/13 and 4/15). |
||
18/0597/FUL - 107 Argyle Road PDF 119 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for retrospective planning permission for raised ground levels in rear garden and rear boundary fence in excess of permitted development parameters. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Owner of 107 had misled the planning committee.
ii.
Local resident had objections.
iii.
High fencing to a narrow passageway was
overbearing. iv.
Unfinished look was unsightly.
v.
Elderly, less mobile neighbours were presented with
an ugly fence outside their windows. vi.
Raised level of the internal garden had forced the
fence to be raised for privacy. Officers clarified the status of the garden canopy. This would be dealt
with by a separate retrospective application. The Committee discussed the application and stated that the fence was
overbearing, of poor design and caused harm to the amenity of neighbours. The Committee: Resolved (Unanimously) to reject the officer recommendation to
approve the application. Resolved
(Unanimously) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: The fence, by virtue of its height and
design would appear incongruous in the street scene and result in harm to the
character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to
Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/7. The fence by virtue of its height and design
will result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure on and overbearing impact to
neighbouring residents. The fence is necessary to prevent overlooking of
neighbouring properties due to the raising of the ground level within the site
and this aspect of the development is therefore also unacceptable. As such the
proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/7. |
||
18/0169/S73 - Westcott House PDF 248 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an S73 application to
vary conditions as below. The application sought S73
approval
to vary conditions 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29 of ref: 15/1217/FUL
(Proposed extension to house additional library space and new teaching /
tutorial accommodation to the south side of Westcott House. Proposal
incorporates a basement, ground and first floor with a new college entrance off
the refurbished Manor Street Car park access) to amend the timings of discharge
of these conditions. The Committee noted
the amendment sheet. Peter Howard-Jones (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. |
||
17/2183/FUL - Land Rear Of Queens Meadow PDF 184 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of 2 No affordable
dwellings.
The Committee noted
the Amendment Sheet and the following correction to the text of recommendation
18. Additional word in bold and underlined. The window on the south-east side
elevation at first floor of Plot 2 level shall be obscure glazed to a minimum
level of obscurity to conform to Pilkington Glass level 3 or equivalent prior
to commencement of use and shall have restrictors to ensure that the window
cannot be opened more than 45 degrees beyond the plane of the adjacent wall
nearest to Coldhams Lane and shall be retained as
such thereafter. Councillor
Thornburrow requested additional conditions to protect the health of trees in a
neighbouring property. This was agreed nem con. with the wording delegated to officers. 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, subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers and subject to the additional condition: Before the development hereby permitted is
commenced details of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved
by the local planning authority in writing. i) contractors
access arrangements for plant and personnel, ii) the location of
contractors site storage area/compound and material storage, iii) the means of
moving, storing and stacking all building materials, plant and equipment around
and adjacent to the site, Thereafter the development shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the adjacent trees and
amenity of the adjoining properties during the construction period. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 policies 4/4 and 4/13) |
||
18/0454/FUL - 53 Kings Hedges Road PDF 205 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for Change of use of existing dwelling to 9 bedroom large scale HMO. Part two storey, part single storey rear extension and hip to gable
roof extension with rear dormer and front rooflights
following demolition of existing garage. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
HMO would be out of keeping with the area.
ii.
Kings Hedges Road was an interesting road with
sections of family accommodation and sections of non-residential.
iii.
Nine units in one property would be problematic. iv.
Insufficient parking in the area.
v.
Property lacked communal areas. Don Proctor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor
Gawthrope (King’s Hedges Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application and made the following comments.
i.
There were no other HMO’s in the area.
ii.
Size of proposed extension was out of keeping with
the area.
iii.
Neighbouring properties would be overshadowed. iv.
Area was currently predominantly family housing.
v.
Proposal was overdevelopment. vi.
Parking in the area was already problematic. Councillors
discussed the proposal and had the following concerns: i.
Inadequate internal living
space. ii.
Out of keeping with the
area. iii.
Concerns regarding fire
safety. iv.
Impact on amenity of
neighbouring properties. v.
Overdevelopment. vi.
Insufficient cycle parking. vii.
Scale of the extension. viii.
Poor quality design. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 and 1 abstention) to reject the officer recommendation to
approve the application. Resolved (by 4
votes to 3 and 1 abstention) to
refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following
reasons: 1.
By virtue of the scale of the development and the
proposed number of occupiers, together with the poor quality of the internal
communal space, the proposal would result in an increased reliance on the rear
garden area and level of activity that would harm the amenities of occupiers of
adjoining residential properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
Policies 4/13 and 5/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). 2.
Due to the scale and design of the proposed side
and rear extensions, the development would unbalance the row of properties and
appear dominant and incongruous in the streetscene,
particularly when viewed in the context of the adjacent row of bungalows on Campkin Road. The development would therefore be contrary
to Policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006). |
||
18/0446/FUL - 33 Redfern Close PDF 133 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a two storey side extension following demolition of existing car port. New
front and rear roof extension including raising ridge height. Replace existing
conservatory with new single storey rear extension and convert existing out
house to study/workshop. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Moved to the neighbouring property one year ago.
ii.
This was an attractive area to retire to.
iii.
Accepts that the property next door needed
updating. iv.
Scale of proposal contravenes emerging local plan.
v.
Would result in overlooking and shadowing. vi.
Would present a long blank wall to neighbours. vii.
Featureless and overbearing aspect. viii.
Large dormer would overlook neighbours. ix.
Sunlight would be lost in the kitchen and garden of
her house.
x.
Has concerns about the possible future us of the
outbuilding. Jacqueline Jiang-Haines (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. Councillor Mike
Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application and made the following comments:
i.
Appreciates that the applicant had listen and
amended plans.
ii.
There were no other dormers in the area.
iii.
Increased ridge height would be problematic. iv.
Size of planned property would be overdevelopment.
v.
Shadowing of neighbours would be significant and
unneighbourly. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 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. |