Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Green. Councillor Bird attended
as her Alternate. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 7 October and 4 November were
approved as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||
20/04395/PRI18A - Cambridge Railway Station PDF 192 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for the Prior Approval for the erection of a building
to enclose a new Carriage Wash Machine (CWM). The CWM building would be located
on a section of track linking the two separate north and south yards of the
Cambridge Rail depot, which are divided by Mill Road bridge. The Senior Planner
updated his report by referring to revised condition and recommendation wording
on the Amendment Sheet and to amended wording of Condition 3 in his
presentation. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following: · Resident
of Eastern Street. · A
representative from Quash the Trainwash Community
Organisation. The representations covered the following issues: i.
An
industrial facility does not belong in a residential area that is itself in the
centre of a conservation area. More appropriate land for its location at
Cambridge North was sold, with only transport organisations consulted; not the
community or Councillors. Even when the Mill Road bridge works were proposed in
2018, this facility was largely obfuscated. Had it been raised then, the community would have asked many more questions.
ii.
This
application has come before the Committee due to the effort and expense of
residents. Even then, approval is sought only for two buildings rather than the
industrial facility with which they are interdependent. It is not just two
buildings. Residents were being asked to accept continuous noise, vibration, and
chemical outputs. Plus the visual blight of a 35m
metre long and 8.5m metre high building and associated plant, lit up all night,
just metres from their back fences.
iii.
This
was a significant change. twelve carriage trains would arrive constantly to be
cleaned 24/7, 365 days a year. Cleaning would peak with four trains an hour
being cleaned at anti-social times of between
3:30am to 6am. While lorries were no longer allowed to idle in streets,
residents were expected to tolerate trains idling in the depot 24/7. Residents
accepted that living alongside the railway brought noise and they wanted an
efficient railway. Residents felt like collateral damage in the railways’
strategic plan. iv.
Railways need to respect the
communities they serve, and so residents objected to the application and
proposed conditions as set out in their written representations. v.
Asked for the following: a.
Visual
alignment with the surrounding built environment - brick-effect walls and slate
coloured roofs; dark brown or green fencing. b.
Maximum
physical noise attenuation of the buildings, and acoustic fences at entrance
and exit especially along the whole length of the sidings. Following the
precautionary principle, this should be done now, and should not await
post-operation tests. c.
On-going
noise assessments to hold the operators to the claimed 44dB during cleaning and
38dB background. d.
O-ngoing vibration assessments of the integrity of
foundations and walls of houses. e.
Operations
should be limited to Monday – Friday, with a maximum of two trains per hour. vi.
Residents
already suffered from almost seven day a week construction noise from both this
and Ironworks, exacerbated by working from home during a pandemic. This
facility raised the prospect that at no point in the future residents would be
assured of a rest from noise, vibration, visual, light, and chemical pollution.
Residents appealed to the Committee to impose reasonable conditions and not
allow this facility to operate at the long-term cost of injury to the
community. vii.
Expressed particular
concern that chemicals/spray from train cleaning operations would be
spread (by wind) to residents’ gardens. This and train cleaning operations
would impact on residents’ amenity space. The situation would be exacerbated by
lockdown where residents were forced to stay at home and so would be frequently
disturbed by day and night time train cleaning work. viii.
GTR had
repeatedly been asked to confirm what chemicals would be used in train cleaning
but they had not engaged with residents on this issue. ix.
Re-iterated that: a.
Residents’ sleep could be
interrupted. b.
Residents wanted maximum
mitigation of cleaning processes to avoid impact on their amenity. Councillors Bird
and McQueen temporarily left the meeting due to a disruption in their receipt
of the remote meeting delivery. They participated in the discussion,
but did not vote on the
recommendation. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that prior to the
full operation of the CWM that further noise monitoring and washing vapour
assessments are undertaken. This amendment was carried
by 6 votes to 0. The Committee: Resolved by (6 votes to 0) to grant the application prior approval in accordance with the Officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to: i.
the
planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet; ii.
an additional Condition: Prior to
commencement of development of the CWM building above slab level, the colour
and finish of the external materials to be used in the construction of the
building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The building shall be built in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the appearance of the
building does not harm the visual amenity of the area (Cambridge Local Plan
2018, policies 55 and 61); iii.
an additional Informative: The applicants are
recommended that prior to the full operation of the CWM that further noise
monitoring and washing vapour assessments are undertaken to establish the
operational noise levels of the CWM and its vapour impacts. They utilise reasonable endeavours to
implement any additional mitigation as appropriate; and iv. delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions and informatives in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes. |
|||||||||||||
20/04083/FUL - 39 Akeman Street PDF 140 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the continued use of the property as
a community centre (Use Class D1) and associated office for a further period of
52 weeks. The Committee: Unanimously resolved by all Members present (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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
|||||||||||||
20/01925/FUL - 1 Clarkson Close PDF 216 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing
property and erection of a replacement two storey detached dwelling with a
garage at the front of the property set off the western boundary. The
replacement dwelling would be a substantial property with an ‘L’ shaped layout
and the appearance of an Edwardian
architectural style. Ms Xuereb (Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. Councillor Matthews (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
On
first seeing the plans two main points stood out for me that are also the main
source of objections: a.
The
size of the proposed house in relation to the site and the neighbouring property
4 Clarkson Close. b.
The impact of development on the Adams Road Bird
Sanctuary (a county wildlife site). ii.
The
Officer’s report addressed the potential impacts on the Bird Sanctuary and was
content that the detailed ecological report is sound and there will not be any
significant negative impacts. iii.
On the subject of size: a.
Having
viewed the site it should be noted that the plans and design statement don’t
show just how big 4 Clarkson Close is
compared to the existing dwelling on the application site, and how much 4 Clarkson
Close currently dominates. b.
As
things stand, neither property has privacy where they face each other. The
proposed plans fix this by adding to the natural screening and removing all
direct visibility between habitable rooms. c.
4
Clarkson Close would retain its view of the garden to 1 Clarkson Close and of the trees
backing onto Trinity Old Field and have
a good view of the trees on Clarkson Close. d.
The new
plans mean the footprint of 1 Clarkson
Close will match the footprint of 4 Clarkson Close. iv.
The
Applicants have been in constant conversation with officers in order to address
these issues and others. They have shown they’re willing to compromise and take
on board ideas that improve both1 and 4 Clarkson Close. v.
Please support the officer’s recommendation in
approving this application. Councillor Nethsingha (Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application: i.
Had concerns about size and scale. ii.
The
Applicant was trying to manage the relationship with 4 Clarkson Close. iii.
1 and 4
Clarkson Close was formerly owned by the same family but were no longer. iv.
Relations
between the properties should be fair to both 1 and 4 Clarkson Close. v.
The Officer’s report addressed the Councillor’s
wildlife concerns. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative
concerning air source heat pumps. This amendment was carried
unanimously by all Members
present (7 votes to 0). The Committee: Unanimously
resolved by all Members present (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’s report, and
subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer including the informative
relating to air source heat pumps. Under the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order
2015 permitted development rights were granted
to the development of ground source or air source heat pumps for dwelling
houses and flats. The MCS Planning Standards were developed to act as a
resource for this and contains the requirements, including noise prediction
methodologies, that ground source or air source heat pumps must comply with to
be permitted development under the above Act. Development would not be
permitted development if it failed to comply with The MCS Planning Standards.
It would be a reasonable step to require that any new ground source or air
source heat pump complies with the MCS Planning Standards. This should ensure
that internal and external noise levels are kept to a reasonable level at any
nearby residential premises. The granting of
permission and or any permitted development rights for any Air Source Heat Pump
(ASHP) does not indemnify any action that may be required under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 for statutory noise nuisance. Should
substantiated noise complaints be received in the future regarding the
operation and running of an air source heat pump and it is considered a
statutory noise nuisance at neighbouring premises a noise abatement notice will
be served. It is likely that noise insulation/attenuation measures such as an
acoustic enclosure and/or barrier would need to be installed to the unit in
order to reduce noise emissions to an acceptable level. To avoid noise
complaints it is recommended that operating sound from the ASHP does not
increase the existing background noise levels by more than 3dB (BS 4142 Rating
Level - to effectively match the existing background noise level) at the
boundary of the development site and should be free from tonal or other
noticeable acoustic features. Delegated authority given to Officers to draft the informative in
consultation with the Chair and Spokes. |
|||||||||||||
20/02965/S73 - Grosvenor Court PDF 169 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of
planning permission 19/1250/S73 to permit changes including changes to the car
port, plant room, roof profile and windows. The Planner updated her report by referring to updated condition wording
in her presentation. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Woodlark Road expressing the following concerns: i.
The design was out of context with
the area. ii.
Impact on amenity space. iii.
Overlooking of neighbours. iv.
Boundary wall height was extended
without his knowledge or wishes. v.
Objected to looking out at solar
panels. Dr Wilson (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved by all Members present (7 votes to
0) to grant the Section 73 application in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; a. Condition
18 (Green Roof) to be removed.
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following amended
conditions: a. Condition 15
- No operational plant, machinery or equipment shall be installed until a noise
assessment and any noise insulation/mitigation as required has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any required noise
insulation/mitigation shall be carried out as approved and retained as such. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby
properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 35) b. Revisions
to Surface Water Drainage Scheme - condition 3:
i. Prior
to first occupation of the development, hereby permitted, a revised surface
water drainage scheme that addresses the impact of the loss of the green roof
to the garage/bike store (that formed part of the previously approved scheme
within application reference 18/1637/COND3) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented and
thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water
drainage. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 31 and 32). |
|||||||||||||
20/03250/HFUL - 3 Bradrushe Fields PDF 143 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a loft conversion
with side dormer, roof windows and front and rear gable end windows and the
conversion of the garage roof with roof windows and front gable windows. The Area Development Manager updated the
Senior Planner’s report by referring to revised condition wording in her
presentation regarding obscure glazing in the dormer window (in perpetuity). The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Conduit Head Road: i.
Spoke as Custodian on the special
character and nature of Conduit Head Road Conservation Area wildlife, flora,
fauna, biodiversity and darkness. ii.
Took issue with the Applicant’s
responses to objections. iii.
Residents’
concerns were supported by council officers and accorded with Cambridge Nature
and Conduit Head Road Conservation.
iv.
Thought
the application conflicted with Cambridge City Council biodiversity initiative
2019 to encourage, prioritise, protect and enhance habitat creation. v.
Residents wanted to protect the
singular Conduit Head space for day-time creatures and nocturnal creatures.
Orchard House “nature reserve” is protected, private, fully dedicated,
designated land. It was managed in accordance with conservation of flora and
fauna. Its woodland, stream and ponds were quiet and undisturbed particularly
when dark; and integral with a wildlife corridor and darkness linking hedges,
fields and woodland habitats. vi.
Residents don’t have to create
habitat, establish or restore the natural environment; just protect what was in
place from artificial light. vii.
The proposal would adversely impact
the surrounding diverse ecology, which is why residents object to any north
roof windows due to concerns about light pollution and overlooking their land. viii.
Artificial roof lighting would
impact and disrupt nocturnal wildlife, interfering with natural patterns and
feeding behaviour. Requested the Planning Committee referred to Biodiversity
Officer (Guy Belcher) and Councillor Payne who had visited this site and agreed
it needed protecting from light emission. ix.
The
proposal was in keeping with Bradrushe Fields street
scene, but not in keeping with Conduit Head’s rural character as one of the few
remaining dark, quiet, private, sparsely populated historic Conservation Areas
in Cambridge. Artificial light in Conduit Head was heavily screened with large
mature gardens.
x.
Did not
object to the loft conversion. Objected to the side dormer and four north
facing roof windows. Black-out blinds would not mitigate light pollution from
these, nor did they fit into context. Mrs Thomson (Applicant) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Chadwick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
Wished
to highlight to the Committee the unique character of Conduit Head Road and
surrounds (which connect on to Bradrushe Fields)
amongst residential areas in Cambridge. The road and the properties on it (some
of which border 3 Bradrushe Fields) are a very dark
area due to the lack of street lighting and the separation between houses. If
you ever visit at night you will be struck by how dark and still it is. It is
no wonder that nocturnal wildlife, in particular bats,
thrive there. ii.
This
new development, which might introduce new light, needed to be carefully judged
to help preserve the dark character of the area and avoid disturbing wildlife.
Members should carefully consider the adverse impact light from this planned
development may have in making their decision. Councillor Payne (Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Had
sympathy with the Applicant's reason for this application and was sorry the
need for it to go through Committee has caused a disruption to their
works. ii.
The
reason she called this item into Committee was due to concerns raised by a
neighbouring resident about the impact of the light from the windows on
the woodland at Orchard House. Councillor Payne had not appreciated the
extent and value of this woodland until going to visit the site and I would
like to take the opportunity to convey that to the Committee so it forms part
of their consideration. The wooded area was an exceptional area of
natural forest, which was home to a number of wildlife
including bats and newts. It was so different to a landscape one would
expect in a residential area that she would simply ask the Committee to be sure
they are fully aware of this before making their decision. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include an informative requiring blinds to prevent
light spillage. This amendment was carried
unanimously all Members
present (7 votes to 0). The Committee: Unanimously resolved by all Members present (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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
an additional condition requiring obscure glazing
in the dormer window (in perpetuity);
iii.
an additional informative
requiring blinds to prevent light spillage;
iv.
delegated authority given to Officers to draft the
conditions and informative in consultation with the Chair and Spokes. |