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
Link: Video recording of the meeting
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor McQueen who expected to join the
Committee late, sometime during the discussion of 104-112 Hills Road. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 6 January and 3 March 2021 were approved as a correct record. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
20/03429/FUL 104 - 112 Hills Road Cambridge Cambridgeshire PDF 416 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor McQueen
did not take part in the debate or vote on the application. The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought
approval for (1) the demolition of Betjeman House, Broadcasting House, Ortona House, Francis House, and the rear multi-storey
carpark to Francis House, together with existing refuse and cycle stores; to
allow for construction of two new commercial buildings of five and seven
storeys respectively, providing flexible B1(a), B1(b), A1, A2, A3 uses on the
ground floor and Class B1(a) and B1(b) on the upper floors; - (2) the
construction of basement with mezzanine level to provide for building services,
cycle parking and car parking for the proposed commercial buildings, cycle and
car parking spaces for Botanic House and services for Flying Pig Public House;
- (3) the refurbishment of the Flying Pig Public House at 106 Hills Road,
including demolition of part single/part two storey outrigger and single storey
store, alterations to elevations, construction of extension to enable level
access and layout pub garden; - (4) creation of new public realm and
landscaping, incorporating segregated vehicular and cycle access from Hills
Road, a new access to service areas and substations, and taxi drop off for both
the development proposed and existing Botanic House The Consultant Planner updated his report by referring to updated
condition wording on the Amendment Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Cambridge. The Committee Manager read a written statement:
i.
In late November 2020, the Applicant modified their
planning application. Raised concerns about the changes as a concerned local
resident, but some of these comments were not published on the planning portal,
due to Council technical issues.
ii.
A new technical fault with the portal in 2021 made
it difficult to view the application. (Was able to access other websites, and
the planning portal until 2021.)
iii.
Raised these problems respectively with PlanningComments@greatercambridgeplanning.org
on 7 Dec 2020 and with planning@greatercambridgeplanning.org
on 25 Feb 2021, but only received acknowledgements of the faults, not
explanations or solutions. Queried how many other constituents were affected. iv.
There were many reasons to reject this application.
The fact that online commenting and scrutiny were not possible for some locals
due to Council technical faults, while offline engagement difficult through
COVID, was itself reason enough to reject the application.
v.
Requested postponing this hearing until the portal
was fixed and backlogged comments from 2020 and 2021 published. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Lyndewode Road: i.
The development was expected to be
a mixed-use development of offices and houses. At some point this was lost. ii.
This site was in the local plan. iii.
Housing was expensive in the City. iv.
The Applicant had not responded to
the City Council’s questions about houses so officers
appeared to have removed details from the housing trajectory. Sixty-one
affordable homes were deleted from the scheme. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Golding Road: i.
Expressed concern that the number
of additional job figures and commuter trip figures appeared not to tally. ii.
A wholly non-residential scheme
was unsuitable for the site. iii.
Queried why offices were included
in the application instead of housing. iv.
The scale of the application was
better suited to London than Cambridge. v.
The viability of the Flying Pig
pub was not demonstrated. This application would make the pub unviable. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Vinter Terrace: i.
Expressed concern about lack of
housing. ii.
Housing was required, but not more
office space as the City had enough already. iii.
Five years has been requested to
undertake building work. This was too long and would impact on Hills Road
residents. Eighteen months was more reasonable. iv.
Expressed concern about the design
of the building front. Mr Bainbridge (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
The site was in a prominent
location and needed a better design. ii.
Suggested the application did not
comply with policies 28, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 61 in the 2018 Local Plan. a.
The site was in a Conservation
Area and needed to demonstrate more public benefit than harm. b.
The design was unattractive and
did not suit the character of the area. c.
Retention of the Flying Pig pub
was welcome, but it would look odd when surrounded by office buildings. iii.
This was a change of use
application on extant permission. The Applicant was no longer building homes in
a mixed-use development. The Applicant should not be allowed to drop housing
from the site. iv.
The first iteration of the
application was submitted in 2005. The current application was trying to return
to the [refused] design of 2007 which had buildings that were too tall. v.
Extant permission was granted
2007, the 2018 Local Plan has higher specifications which were not being met by
the current design. The design maybe better than that allowed under extant
permission, but it did not meet 2018 Local Plan policies, so should not be
approved. Councillor Davey (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
The application did not meet Local
Plan policies 57, 58, 62 and 76 relating to scale, massing and architectural
value. ii.
Retention of the Flying Pig pub
was welcome but it would look out of context. Please
do so in a sensitive manner. The pub could be made unviable by 20/03429/FUL. It
was viable at present. Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application: i.
20/03429/FUL had some
architectural merits such as meeting BREEAM standards. ii.
In order to ensure the site was
viable as an office location, the merits of having parking on site versus none
had to be weighed up. iii.
The proposal was better than the
impact of what could be implemented under extant permission, but the Committee
had to judge if it also met 2018 Local Plan standards. iv.
Residents were concerned about: a.
Impact of 20/03429/FUL on the
Botanic Garden. b.
Height of proposed buildings. c.
The loss of the Flying Pig pub.
i. Victorian
buildings were increasingly rare in the City and should be protected.
ii. A
community had grown up around it.
iii. Residents
were desperate to get back to the pub and use it as a music venue. No
alternative venues were available if the pub closed to allow construction of
20/03429/FUL, so it would be unlikely to re-establish itself as a music scene
contributor/venue having closed for construction of 20/03429/FUL. v.
Asked the Committee to impose
conditions so the Flying Pig could remain viable: a.
Protect the pub structure and
repair any damage caused during the construction of 20/03429/FUL. b.
Mitigate the loss of venue.
Suggest access to s106 funding (as per the Joiner’s Arms pub funding award).
Funding to be scaled for the length of Flying Pig pub closure. c.
Provision made for rapid
restoration of Flying Pig pub as a viable business such as 18 months free of
rent. Following member debate,
officers tabled the following revised recommendations: Grant planning permission subject to: (i)
the prior completion of an Agreement under s106
TCPA 1990 with delegated authority to officers (in consultation with the Chair,
Vice-Chair & Spokes) to negotiate and complete such an Agreement on the
terms set out below including terms covering appropriate financial mitigation provisions
for the Flying Pig which will contribute to its viability, its possible
relocation to alternative premises for the period of its closure during
construction of the development and other terms considered appropriate to make
the development acceptable in planning terms including: a.
fixtures and
fittings, apart from personal belongings of the existing tenant/s, shall be
surveyed/recorded, protected and reinstated, to maintain the internal character
of the Flying Pig Public House b.
the Flying Pig
Public House is to be fitted out internally by the applicant to allow full
commercial operation including residential occupation c.
the provision of a
free to use electric bicycle (minimum 50 bicycles) scheme for tenants within
the building d.
a car Parking
Management Strategy to secure access by EVs only e.
Secure a financial
contribution of £500,000 towards Station Road/Hills Road junction improvements;
and (ii)
delegated authority to officers to include as part
of the decision notice and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(EIA) Regulations 2017, Regulation 29 ‘information to accompany decisions’ a
reasoned conclusion of the significant effects of the development on the
environment and to carry out appropriate notification under Regulation 30
accordingly; and (iii)
including delegated authority to officers to
include any minor drafting changes to the following conditions including those
detailed in the Amendment Sheet. The amended officer
recommendation was lost unanimously (7 votes to 0). Councillor McQueen
did not take part in the vote as she joined the Committee during the
discussion. Members provided officers with a list of ‘minded to
refuse’ reasons to refuse the application. There was a short adjournment
whilst officers drafted full reasons for refusal. On return from the
adjournment Members were provided with the full text of the minded to refuse
reasons voting unanimously (by 7 votes to 0) to approve all three
reasons for refusal. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer
recommendation for the following reasons: 1.
The site is located within the Station Areas West
and Clifton Road Area of Major Change which seeks to support the continued and
complete regeneration of mixed-use areas of the city. Site M44 is allocated for
mixed use development including residential use. The proposed development fails
to provide residential dwellings and therefore, does not provide an appropriate
mix of uses within this Area of Major Change contrary to policy 21 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. 2.
The proposed development by virtue of its siting,
massing, height, scale and design would appear as an incongruous addition to
the streetscene and cause an undue sense of enclosure
significantly reducing the openness of the Botanic Garden, to the detriment of
the character of the area. Furthermore, it fails to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the New Town and Glisson Road Conservation Area or
preserve the setting of the Botanic Garden. The harm caused by the proposed development
amounts to less than substantial harm however, the public benefits do not
outweigh this harm. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework and policies 55, 56, 57, 61 and 67 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. 3.
Insufficient information has been provided to
demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the
viability of the Flying Pig public house contrary to the National Planning
Policy Framework and parts (d) and (e) of policy 76 of the Cambridge Local Plan
2018. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
20/04514/FUL - St Matthews Centre PDF 282 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of a building comprising student
accommodation (C2) (113 rooms in 14no flats), including an ancillary reception
building, part change of use of existing building from non-residential
institution (D1) to cafe (A3), including outdoor terrace with associated
development The Committee received representations in objection to the application. The representations made on behalf of Friends of St Matthew’s Piece and
Cambridge Past Present and Future covered the following issues: i.
The Cambridge Local Plan protects
resident’s quality of life, heritage and environmental assets, which was
threatened by this application. Hundreds of objections were lodged, without a
single supporting comment. ii.
Planning law required applications
to be determined in accordance with the Local Plan. This placed a heavy burden
on any applicant to show why a decision should be taken contrary to that Plan.
The Officer’s report demonstrated that the application substantially breached
many Local Plan Policies. iii.
Objected to this application in
the strongest terms and supported the officer’s recommendation of refusal.
Objections were supported by officers and key consultees and focussed on how
the application failed to comply with Local Plan policies. iv.
If approved, the development would
fatally undermine the Local Plan. The proposals would significantly harm the
Conservation Area, the glorious mature trees the community prized so highly,
disrupt the resident’s only park and its tranquillity, and despoil residential
amenity. The building would dominate and
overshadow protected open space and the modest homes that encircled St
Matthew’s Piece. v.
Under Policy 60, any proposal
significantly taller than the surrounding built form must demonstrate that it
had no adverse impact on either neighbouring buildings or open spaces in terms
of “overlooking or overshadowing”. The development breached Policy 60d. vi.
For 4,300 residents, St Matthew's
Piece is the park nearest their home. Proximity is of particular
significance to people with disabilities and their carers,
and for those with impaired mobility due to advanced age or the challenges of
looking after young children. Surrounding properties included flats with little
or no private garden or compact terraced homes with very small gardens. During
the current pandemic, St Matthew’s Piece had been essential to preserving
resident’s mental and physical health. Its vital role as a public open space
was indisputable. vii.
Asked Members to refuse this
application as there were no substantive public benefit arguments in support of
the proposals. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of York Street: i.
No-one had a positive view of the
application. ii.
It failed to enhance the character
of the area. iii.
The application caused overlooking
/ overshadowing. iv.
It would diminish the amount of
open space which allowed people to meet safely and socially distanced. v.
Beautiful trees would be lost. vi.
The building was too high and the design did not fit with the setting. vii.
Streets surrounding the
development were narrow and the development would increase traffic and
exacerbate anti-social driving in the area. viii.
Expressed concerns regarding the
delivery of construction materials. ix.
The benefit of the open space to
residents and their mental health should be taken into consideration. The following statement was read out by the Committee Manager on behalf
of Cambridge School of Visual and Performing Arts (CSVPA) in support of the
application:
i.
Expressed disappointment regarding the officer
recommendation to refuse planning permission for the proposal to create a purpose built student accommodation at St Matthews Centre.
ii.
Since CSVPA had launched as a standalone school in
2014, St Matthew’s Centre had provided an important education facility for
them. The Centre continued to be central to their planned growth as they
further developed their performing arts courses.
iii.
CSVPA vision was to grow the talent pipeline for
the creative industries from 16 plus and to develop visual arts digital talent
from games design to data visualisation and other such subjects.
iv.
The College’s existing under 18
year old accommodation was fully utilised with no opportunities for
expansion. The site at Sturton Street with its
existing Performing Arts Building provided an unrivalled opportunity to support
the work and vision of the College and its growth aspirations for 16-18 age
accommodation.
v.
The integration of new student accommodation with
St Matthew’s Centre, where students were taught, meant the space/facility would
be uniquely and ideally suited to meet the needs of their students with a
localized ‘campus’.
vi.
The provision of purpose-built student
accommodation would also allow CSVPA to have greater direct management of
students and a greater capacity to support the learning, health and wellbeing
of the students. A strong emphasis on pastoral care was provided and all under 18 year olds boarding were managed by a highly trained team
of professional House Parents who would reside at the
property. All students must obey the College’s clear conduct rules and curfew
times to be back in their rooms. There was also a 24 hour
emergency number which could be called, as well as a telephone number for the
House Parent.
vii.
CSVPA trusted the Committee could recognise the
significant opportunity that the proposal represented in supporting the
continued growth of a Cambridge based institution and its ability to compete
nationally and internationally, together with adding to the vibrancy of the
City. Rob Hopwood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
The drawing did not convey the true scale of the
development.
ii.
Asked the developer not to proceed with the
development.
iii.
Noted that despite negative responses to the public
consultation the developer submitted an application
very similar to the application consulted on.
iv.
Referred to the protected open space and the fact
that the stairs would intrude onto protected open space.
v.
Existing dwellings would be over-shadowed by the
application.
vi.
It was an enormous proposal, proposed on a park.
vii.
Sunlight would be taken from buildings if the
development went ahead. viii.
It was imposing on the street scape.
ix.
The proposal sought to ignore requirements in the
local plan.
x.
CSVPA needed to recognise that the accommodation
would not be guaranteed for their school. CSVPA could not always guarantee that
they would lease the building.
xi.
Requested an additional reason for refusal based on
policy 60d, which was concerned with structures significantly taller than
surroundings overall by virtue of excessive scale, height and depth, which
would result in adverse impact in terms of overlooking and overshadowing. Councillor Davies (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application:
i.
Neighbouring residents to the development were
Abbey residents.
ii.
The breadth of objections made clear the number of
local plan policies breached by the proposal.
iii.
Policy 60d needed to be added to any reasons for
refusal. The structure breached the existing skyline.
iv.
The applicants should have demonstrated that there
were no adverse impacts.
v.
There would be an adverse impact on New Street, the
development would clearly overlook and overshadow this street.
vi.
Sun light would be blocked by the development at
noon and at certain times of the day.
vii.
The development would overshadow and adversely
impact 89 New Street which had solar panels. Interference of solar panels was a
material planning consideration. viii.
Referred to Policy 67 and the protection of open
space. The development would damage the open space. St Matthews Piece was
important to the riverside community. It was the only green space walking back
from Mill Road, the Grafton Centre and the railway.
ix.
This was precious open space in Petersfield and to
Abbey ward residents. Councillor Davey
(Petersfield Ward Councillor) read out the following statement from County
Councillor Jones.
i.
This is
an instance of overdevelopment on a site that was adjacent to one of the few
public open spaces in the densely populated Petersfield area. The County
Councillor also lived locally and regularly used this area for walking and
cycling.
ii.
Challenged
the claim in the Bidwells’ report that a shortage of
student accommodation currently existed (para 6.17), given the less than full
capacity evidence from other sites and the likely impact of online learning.
There was no evidence for the claim contained in the report.
iii.
Challenged
the framing of the 'moderate adverse impact' (para. 6.46) that Bidwells set out. They argued that the admitted 'moderate
adverse impact' could be reduced to being 'minor' or even 'negligible' (para.
49) by the additional biodiversity/landscaping.
iv.
The
presentation of the 'walkway' to St Matthew’s Piece from New Street as an
'accessibility' gain overlooked the fact that over 100 plus students were
likely to be reducing the accessibility for local residents.
v.
As a
local councillor, he challenged the assumptions made about access and travel.
Similar claims had been made for other student developments at planning stage
claiming that student travel was almost exclusively by cycle and foot, yet
subsequently residents have reported noise and inconvenience, caused in part by
high use of taxis and late night activity. There was
no date given for the travel survey in Appendix B so
it was unclear if this was a summer or winter snapshot of existing travel modes
and unreliable as a predictor of a new student group.
vi.
The
earlier claims (para.3.13) about no parking spaces except for disabled changed
in para. 6.75 to 5 disabled and 2 others. The purpose of the ‘others’ was
unclear. Councillor Davey
(Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Was not against landmark buildings however the
development disrespected the community where the development was going to be. ii.
Asked for a further reason for refusal to be
included based on policy 60d. iii.
Noted the Fire and Rescue Service response had not
been received. iv.
The applicant failed to comply with local plan
requirements. v.
Referred to policy 23, the Eastern Gateway SPD - applications had to
comply with a duty to enhance the character of the area. The Applicant stated
that the effect of the development only partially complied with this policy. vi.
The special character of Cambridge needed to be
protected. vii.
The project was out of scale. viii.
Noted policy 57 of the local plan stated that high
quality buildings could be supported if they had a positive impact. ix.
Cycle parking was inappropriate. x.
Referred to policy 59 of the local plan and noted
that the contribution was negative. xi.
Referred to policy 60d and noted that there was a
requirement to demonstrate that there was no adverse impact, the application
could not do this. xii.
The St Mathew’s Piece had been in existence since
1898 and was on the only designated park in the Petersfield ward. xiii.
The application did not recognise the importance of
St Matthew’s Piece. xiv.
Referred to local plan policy 67 and noted that
students would significantly impact on St Matthew’s Piece and would harm the
character of it. xv.
Referred to local plan policy 71 and noted that the
open space had been essential during the pandemic. xvi.
Noted that the trees within the area were
significant and nothing should compromise them. xvii.
No-one supported the application, it was a bad
application, in the wrong place. 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 report subject to an: i. Amendment to condition 1 to include a reference regarding a threat to crime; and ii. Amendment to condition 5 to reference loss of open space. Committee delegated authority to officers to amend the reasons for refusal in accordance with i and ii above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
20/01609/FUL - 25B Bishops Road PDF 177 KB Minutes: Application deferred to the next Planning Committee as the Committee had insufficient time to properly consider the application. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Advisory Service Review PDF 389 KB Report to follow Additional documents: Minutes: The Assistant Director Delivery summarised the Planning Advisory Service
review report. The Committee:
i.
Noted
the content and recommendations set out in the Planning Advisory Service
report.
ii.
Noted
that a further report would be taken to Planning and Transport Scrutiny
Committee/Executive Councillor in June 2021 to recommend setting up a
joint Member/Officer Group on a task and finish basis to
oversee the implementation of the PAS report recommendations or,
where appropriate to agree the reasons for not
implementing any specific recommendation(s) and more
specifically to set its terms of reference.
iii.
Considered what representation this Planning
Committee should have on the Group and to advise Scrutiny Committee/the
Executive Councillor direct and individually with any Member views. The
Committee agreed that any reference to Chair and Vice-Chair in the
report would include reference to Spokes. |