Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Meeting attendance > 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: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2020 and 2 December 2020
were approved as a correct record. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03651/S73 - 6-18 King Street PDF 202 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for a section 73
variation of Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission 17/1497/FUL
(Erection of 64 student rooms, 7 student kitchens, 4 college offices, music
practice room and seminar rooms, commercial unit (386 sqm) provision of a
connection to the Todd Building and associated landscaping and cycle parking
(includes demolition of later structure of 6-10 with facade retention,
demolition of 12 to 16 and alterations to 18)) to enable alterations to the
design and allow for internal adjustments for fire precautions, plant and
renewable energy features. The Planner
updated her report by referring to updated details and the removal of condition
21 on the amendment sheet. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of
King Street. The written statement was read by the Committee Manager: i.
Wrote as the lessee (for the last 15) years of this project’s
adjoining neighbour. A business now called the Stolen Liquor Loft and
Restaurant, previously under my care as d'Arry's
restaurant. ii.
Asked the determination of the application be adjourned
and remains adjourned until Objector’s neighbours demonstrated that they were trust worthy applicants by meeting the planning conditions
previously placed upon them and disregarded to date. iii.
The applicants were granted consent to demolish and rebuild 6
- 18 Kings Street but proceeded to demolish without fulfilling the planning
conditions placed upon them. iv.
They had not agreed noise management or mitigation measures
prior to demolition commencement. Despite the demolition being broadly
complete, critical planning conditions (from perspective as a
neighbour), relating to the management of the site remained unapproved. Ms Page (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Members were asked if they wished to defer this item or continue to
consider it at today’s Committee. They resolved
(by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) to determine the item at this Committee. Councillor Porrer proposed
amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include informatives
to:
i.
mitigate the noise of air source heat pumps. The
intention is to make the Applicant aware of this issue now as air source heat
pumps are the subject of a separate application; and
ii.
restrict the hours of music playing and
amplification late into the evening. The intention is to ensure the Applicant
aware that noise from the music room could disturb neighbours. The amendments were carried
unanimously. In response to
Councillor Thornburrow request to include reference to condition 12G, the Area Development
Manager offered Committee an
amendment to the Officer’s recommendation: Condition 33. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to any
development above slab level the installation of any roof top plant or PV
panels, details of their height and proposed screening, including external
appearance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The submission shall include reference to condition 12G in terms of
the location of service risers and the location of the plant location. The
rooftop plant and its screening shall be installed thereafter only in
accordance the approved details. Reason: To avoid harm to the special interest of the listed building and
Conservation Area and in order to minimise the impact on residential amenity
(Cambridge Local Plan 2018, policies 35, 61). This offer as an amendment
to the condition was carried unanimously. Councillor Smart
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative advising that issues with neighbours should be resolved at an
earlier stage in the process ie planning conditions should be discharged
promptly. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Assistant
Director proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative to use appropriate methods to clean the glazing. The Committee: Unanimously resolved 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 and the amendment sheet;
ii.
the removal of condition 21;
iii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the amended
condition 33 (set out above);
iv.
informatives
included on the planning permission in respect of: a. air
source heat pumps; b. noise
from the music room; c. discharge
of planning conditions; d. cleaning
of glazing. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03626/LBC - 6-18 King Street PDF 218 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for Listed Building
Consent for provision of connection to the Todd Building. Councillor Thornburrow
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that condition 3 should be amended so that details were
discussed before work took place above slab/ground level. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Assistant
Director proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative to use appropriate methods to clean the glazing. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for Listed Building Consent 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.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the amended
condition 3;
iii.
an informative included on the on the Listed Building Consent to use
appropriate methods of cleaning the glazing. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03038/S73 - 60 Trumpington Road PDF 151 KB Minutes: Councillor Green withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate
in the discussion, the decision making nor did she
vote. The Committee received a Section 73
application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning application
18/1058/FUL. The Principal Planner updated his report by stating condition 1 should
refer to condition 30 not 40. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of North Cottages: i.
In the course of the ongoing dispute regarding the width of
the right of way, the Police have required undertakings from both the developer
and me (the resident) that there will be no activity on the building site until
the legal issues regarding the right of way to which neighbours are entitled
have been resolved. Until that resolution has been achieved to the satisfaction
of both parties any discussion of this Section 73 Notice is premature, if not
irrelevant. ii.
The original planning application was approved with a
condition that the only window on the south elevation was to be of limited
size, of obscured glass, as a bathroom window. It had been the concern of the
owner of the house opposite the proposed development that any further windows
would allow the invasion of her privacy. iii.
The Objector caught the Developer taking photographs from his
building site of that neighbour. Allowing him to use today's Section 73
variation to add a further window or windows on that South elevation Would
enable him or others to intrude even more on to her privacy, the very thing the
original condition was intended to prevent. If you decide to approve further
windows, I suggest that that they be of obscured glass, with no opening lights. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a 1.1m obscure glazing strip be used on the balcony
(front of house, second floor). This amendment was carried
(by 6 votes to 1). The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 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;
ii.
condition 1 wording be amended as above;
iii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include an additional condition relating toa 1.1m obscure glazing strip to be used on the balconywith Chair, Vice
Chair and Spokes to be consulted on details regarding the glazing. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03327/FUL - Rose Cottage, Trumpington PDF 163 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of one two storey dwelling with basement for
additional living space. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation
that informatives be added
regarding: i.
adding electric vehicle
charging points; ii.
being mindful of party wall
legislation when undertaking work in the basement. The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation that conditions be added
regarding: i.
the removal of permitted
development rights for the detached garage to ensure it was ancillary to the
house and not used as accommodation; ii.
the basement should not be
used as a bedroom without a second stairway due to fire regulations. The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that an informative be included discouraging the
property being used as AirBnB. This amendment was lost
by 3 votes to 2. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) 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.
the following additional conditions, with delegated authority to Officers
to draft the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Spokes: a.
the removal of permitted development rights for the
detached garage; b. the basement shall not be used as a bedroom; c. a construction management plan
iii.
informatives in respect of: a. electric
vehicle charging points; b. party wall legislation. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03418/FUL - 14-17 Regent Terrace PDF 222 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for demolition of existing garages and erection of a new 4
storey building containing 7 apartments (6 no. 1 bed and 1 no. 2 bed). Dr Burgess (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation that informatives be added
regarding: i.
residents of the proposed
property would not benefit from the resident’s parking scheme; ii.
the protection of Hobson’s
Conduit; iii.
post boxes should be
located outside the building. The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the green roof should be maintained in perpetuity. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation (save for the removal of requirement of a s106 Agreement linked
to the planning permission), 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.
delegated authority to officers,
in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include
an additional condition that the green
roof shall be maintained in perpetuity; iii. informatives in respect of: a. residents
of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s parking scheme; b. the
protection of Hobson’s Conduit; c. post
boxes should be located outside the building. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1408/FUL - 45 Highworth Avenue PDF 217 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a residential redevelopment comprising three link detached dwellings
to the rear and one detached dwelling on the site frontage along with car and
cycle parking and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing
building on the site. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following: · Resident
of Hurst Park Avenue. · Resident
of Highworth Avenue. The representations covered the following issues: i.
Following the death of the last
owner, the property was in the hands of a developer who wanted to develop a
garden that overlooked neighbours. ii.
The design was out of style with
the character of the area. iii.
Expressed concern about the: a.
Impact on wildlife in the area. b.
Impact on neighbours’ amenity. c.
The oppressive indoor living
environment for residents and unattractive outlook for neighbours. iv.
Many neighbours had objected to
the development: a.
Loss of privacy. b.
Parking concerns. c.
Not a covid friendly development. v.
Asked for the developer to come
back with a scheme that responded to the area, prioritised family housing and
had fewer units on site. Councillor Sargeant
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Supported the recommendation and
the reasons for refusal. ii.
Requested an additional reason for
refusal: Highworth Avenue was a residential area not a city centre development
as the Agent stated. iii.
There was a lack of amenity space
as this was a garden development and people could not play in the road as they
may have done in the past. iv.
The site could set an
unsustainable precedent for demolition of houses and development of gardens in
the area. v.
Negative impact on biodiversity. vi.
Highworth Avenue had highly
individual properties that cumulatively made an arts and craft design style.
The modern design style of the application failed to respond to context. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
reason for refusal 4 should
reference additional vehicle movements; ii.
[New reason 5] The proposal
has failed to demonstrate that it would not result in a net loss of
biodiversity or that through mitigation no net loss or net gain is possible. As
such, the proposal is contrary to policy 70 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018
and NPPF 2019 guidance, paragraph 170. The amendments were carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 7
votes to 0) to refuse the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and amendments as follows: i.
reason for refusal number 4
should reference additional vehicle movements; ii.
[New reason 5] The proposal
has failed to demonstrate that it would not result in a net loss of
biodiversity or that through mitigation no net loss or net gain is possible. As
such, the proposal is contrary to policy 70 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018
and NPPF 2019 guidance, paragraph 170. |
||||||||||||||||
20/01967/FUL - 6 Chaucer Road PDF 99 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for change of use of the site to use
Class D1 (Education); alterations to existing greenhouse to facilitate use as a
classroom, erection of a single storey teaching/toilet block, and alterations
to boundary treatment. The Planner updated her report by referring to amended drafting for
condition 7 wording on the amendment sheet. Mr Giarlis (Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
to
include a flat roof condition; ii.
the
‘Reason’ in condition 6 should be amended as follows: Reason: To ensure
that the external appearance of the development does not detract from the
character and appearance of the area and ensure energy efficient materials
are used to provide a sustainable building. The amendments were carried
unanimously. 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
ii.
the following additional/amended
conditions, with delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions in
consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes: a. to include a flat roof condition; b. reason in condition 6 should be amended to
meet the resolution above. |