Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: 20/02172/FUL - 11 Queen Ediths Way report is inserted twice by mistake. P35-98, then P99-162. Please ignore P99-162
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Smart. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2021 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||
20/02172/FUL - 11 Queen Ediths Way Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of new buildings to
provide 40 serviced apartments (sui generis) together with hard and soft
landscaping, basement car parking spaces and associated infrastructure and
works. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Queen Ediths Way: i.
Concern about loss of community
asset by replacing a care home with a hotel.
ii.
22
people would lose a care home facility.
iii.
Care
homes were covered by Local Plan Policy 47. The application did not satisfy the
policy requirements to justify the change of use to change from a care home to
a hotel.
iv.
Took
issue with the scale and mass details of buildings set out in plans submitted
by the Applicant, did not think they were accurate i.e. showed true extent. v.
Queried if hotel would be viable
in future. vi.
Pressure on local parking. vii.
Biodiversity concerns. viii.
Impact of refuse/waste collection
(arrangements) on local residents and cycle lane. Mr Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor S. Davies (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
Requested the application be
rejected. ii.
Local Plan Policies: a.
Councillors
needed to consider Local Plan Policies 17 and 77. b.
Policy
77 stated that high quality accommodation would be supported “at Cambridge
Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s hospital)”. In para 8.5 of the
Officer report the Officer suggested
that 11 QEW is close enough to the Campus to qualify for approval under Policy
77. c.
Policy
17 stated campus accommodation needs
should be met on-site. d. Suggested
that Policy 17 was a more important consideration than Policy 77 in this case. e. The
campus should not negatively impact nearby residents. iii.
Impact of this development on the
character of area: a.
the
character of the area was predominantly residential with early-mid 20th century
2.5 storey detached houses; b.
the
application would be incompatible with this residential character, in terms of
both scale and usage type; and c.
there
was no precedent for this type of accommodation in the area.
iv.
Queen
Edith Way was used by cyclists/commuters accessing local employment sites
(including the Biomedical Campus) and education sites (including Netherhall
School, Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge Academy for Science and Technology
and Trumpington Community College). Queried why the highways authority did not
comment on this application when they commented on the nearby Fendon Road
‘Dutch’ style roundabout.
v.
Local
takeaway facilities/infrastructure could not support the needs of residents in
the proposed apartments where the apartments are only 25 sq. m, i.e. only 2/3rd
the size of the minimum space standard specified in Policy 50 and where there
are no communal facilities on site. vi.
The lack of policies to prohibit
development on-site was a low bar to overcome to approve development on this
site. It did not mean that this was the right development in the right
location. Councillor Baigent proposed and Councillor Dryden seconded
a motion deferring the decision until further information could be obtained. This proposal/motion was carried (by 5 votes to 0). Councillor Porrer did not vote or participate in the
debate on this application. The Committee: Application deferred to a future Planning
Committee to allow Officer time to present further information they considered
material to the application. |
||||||||||
21/01521/FUL - Land r/o 56-58 Cherry Hinton Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of 7 apartments comprising
1 x 2-bed and 6 x 1-bed units, including bin and cycle storage facilities,
together with reconfiguring the pedestrian access to 56A and 58A Cherry Hinton
Road and installation of a new ground floor rear wall to the retained retail
unit at 56-58 Cherry Hinton Road, following demolition of existing warehouse
building. Mr Brand (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Dryden
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation calling for new residents to be advised they would not be
issued parking permits so they could share parking facilities with existing
residents in the area (which had controlled parking on the road). This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Baigent
proposed the following amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:
i.
The inclusion of a fire hydrant condition.
ii.
The inclusion of an Informative concerning fire
appliance access to site. iii.
External bike racks should
be available if there was no cycle store. These amendments were
carried unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that post boxes should be
accessible and located outside of buildings. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application. Unanimously resolved to refuse the
application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
The design and layout of the scheme fails to respond appropriately to its
context. The footprint and lack of external space around the building is
constrained and does not promote sustainable access to the site (which is car
free) or inclusive design for all users and does not demonstrate adequate space
would be made for providing renewable technologies and is therefore an
over-development of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies
55, 56 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
ii.
The future occupiers of the proposed flats would be exposed to the odour
generated from nearby cooking food outlets and there is no certainty that the
existing odour issue will be mitigated. The development is therefore contrary to policy 35 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. |
||||||||||
19/1167/FUL and 19/1350/LBC - Public Toilet, Silver Street Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for refurbishment of existing basement toilets
and associated works to include the provision of a new guard rail to the
basement stairs, and the erection of a replacement wheelchair accessible WC and
kiosk (following demolition of the existing wheelchair accessible WC
structure). The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Merton Street: i.
This application differed little
from the previous iteration. The same concerns remained. ii.
Trees would be pollarded and/or
given a crown lift. iii.
There was no net gain in
biodiversity. iv.
Grey water recycling facilities
were inadequate. v.
It would be hard to clean and
maintain the building. vi.
Fewer tourists were visiting the
city so a building for masses of tourists was no longer required. vii.
The application failed to meet
Local Plan policies. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Eltisley Avenue : i.
This building puts form above
function, was wasteful and designed for mass tourism pre-pandemic; before the
council recognised that we were in climate and biodiversity emergencies. ii.
Tourists would remember the
‘gateway to the city’. Please put facilities in an appropriate place so the
city looked attractive to visitors. iii.
The building was not accessible, easy
to maintain or truly sustainable, so failed to meet policies in the Local Plan
and should be refused. The Chair ruled the points to be made in a written statement by a
resident of Ascham Road were not relevant to this application. Mr Mac Mahon (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’s report and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer viz:
i.
19/1167/FUL granted planning permission subject
to the conditions; specified in the officer’s report for the application; and ii.
19/1350/LBC granted listed building consent
subject to the conditions specified in
the Officer’s report for the LBC application. |
||||||||||
21/00537/FUL - 29 High Street Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing dwelling and
erection of five dwellings and associated landscaping. The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to updated condition
23 wording in her presentation: The development, hereby permitted, shall not
be occupied until the proposed first floor windows in the north-east elevation
of unit 2 have, apart from any top hung vent, been fitted with obscured glazing
(meeting as a minimum Pilkington Standard level 3 or equivalent in obscurity
and shall be fixed shut or have restrictors to ensure that the windows cannot
be opened more than 45 degrees beyond the plane of the adjacent wall. The
glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent overlooking of the
adjoining properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 57/58). The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from Principal Planning Officer (Cambridge, Past Present & Future) -
written statement read by Committee Manager:
i.
Spoke on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present & Future.
Their aims relevant to this application were to protect the important built
heritage of Cambridge.
ii.
A detailed response was provided to the planning application.
Asked Members to give weight to the impact of the proposal on the tree coverage
and the character of the conservation area and refuse the application.
iii.
More than half the curtilage benefits from tree canopy and
the proposal involved wholesale removal of 12 individual trees, one group of
trees, one area of trees and 2 hedgerows and a section of hedgerow. Only 2
existing trees were retained. This level of tree cover would never be
replicated on site if the development went ahead.
iv.
This wholesale loss of tree cover did not sit well with the
Council’s corporate approach to trees as set out in its Tree Strategy and the
Cambridge Canopy Project.
v.
Guidance in the conservation area appraisal is that new
buildings must respect the character, constraints, and opportunities of the
site. This application approaches this by removing the trees rather than
designing the proposal around them.
vi.
The conservation area appraisal identified the corner of High
Street and Church Street as a positive view or vista. The listed building of 25
& 27 High Street which adjoins the site creates an attractive gateway whose
setting needs to be protected. The current property on the application site,
sits back from the road and provides space and allows views of the listed
building notably its eastern elevation. The 2 replacement dwellings are sited
to the front the site and abut the listed building. They form a very
substantial whole and are located only a meter from the side of the listed
building, hiding its eastern elevation and encroaching on its setting. This
also narrows the vista and creates a more strongly defined urban corridor to
the detriment of the conservation area. vii.
The Officers’ report, contrary to the advice of the
Conservation Team, did not consider that the change to the character and
appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building
would be harmful and have tipped the balance in favour of meeting the Council’s
housing requirement. Members were asked to reconsider this and favour the
protection of the conservation area, the setting of the listed building and the
retention of trees and refuse the application as being contrary to Local Plan
policies 52, 55, 57, 59, 61 and 71. Mr Durrant (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that an informative be included on the planning
permission in respect of air source heat pumps. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 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.
the amended
condition 23; and
iii.
delegated
authority to Officers to include an additional informative in respect of air
source heat pumps. |
||||||||||
21/00660/FUL - Land adj 131 Ditton Fields Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for construction of 6no. dwellings
together with access, car parking, bin and bikes stores, landscaping and
associated infrastructure. The Principal
Planner updated his report by referring to updated recommendation wording in
his presentation viz: Grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the
Officer report, including the prior completion of a s106
Agreement and the amendment proposed in this presentation with regard to
securing the off-site biodiversity improvements through a s106 planning
obligation rather than by way of condition (condition 24), and the amendment to
the reason for condition 12. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions and the prior completion of a
s106 Agreement as recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||
21/03469/FUL - 75 Cromwell Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for change of use of early years nursery
and community space to early years nursery, with associated works. 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’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||
21/03892/S106A - 75 Cromwell Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for
modification of planning obligations contained in a Section 106 Agreement dated
11th October 2019 pursuant to ref: 19/0288/FUL. The Committee: Resolved (by 5
votes to 0) to
approve the application to vary the planning obligations in
accordance with the Officer’s report and recommendation for the reasons
expounded in the report. |