Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February and 2 March 2016.  

The minutes of the meetings of the 3^rd February 2016 and the 2^nd March 2016 were agreed and signed as correct records.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for two storey side and rear extension to create 3 No. 2 Bed flats.

 

Rodney Crabb, applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee delegated authority to officers to ensure that this site was within the City Council boundary as it appeared to be very close to the South Cambs boundary line.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers subject to standard car club informative.

 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY to issue a Decision Notice after checking the implications of the site straddling the boundary with SCDC.

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the installation of 6 floodlight columns (to be sited around an artificial grass hockey pitch proposed in application 15/1857/FUL).

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Planning Officer stated that conditions 6 and 7 needed to be reworded to bring the hours of use for the floodlighting in line with those already agreed in the pitch approval (0900 to 1900hrs Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1800hrs on Saturday).

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application on behalf of residents with properties backing onto the site.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Lights would be within 25 metres of gardens and 75 metres of houses.

    ii.        Lights very bright.

   iii.        Would cause disturbance to wildlife.

  iv.        Would result in a loss of amenity and privacy.

   v.        Tall light columns were out of character with the area.

  vi.        Area was currently a wildlife haven and there was an active badger set in the area.

 vii.        Established trees could be damaged.

viii.        Safety concerns about stray balls.

  ix.        Concerned that pitch use could further expand to include commercial use.

   x.        Mitigation measures would be appreciated.

 

Kate Wood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Moore (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and made the following comment:

     i.        Agreed that there was a need for this sort of facility.

    ii.        Concerned that the area was ecologically important and was currently very dark.

   iii.        Objected to the way this application had be broken down into constituent parts rather than being considered as a complete entity and looking at the end result.

  iv.        Noise would impact on a currently undisturbed area.

   v.        Concerned about the removal of condition 8.

 

The Committee resolved Nem Con to the removal of the conditions 7, 8 and 9. Condition 6 would be amended to bring the hours of use for the floodlighting in line with those already agreed in the pitch approval (0900 to 1900hrs Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1800hrs on Saturday).

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) 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.

 

-      Condition 7 is removed

-      Condition 8 is removed

-      Condition 9 is removed

-       

-      Condition 6 shall be re-worded to read as follows:

 

“The floodlighting hereby permitted shall only be used between the hours of 0900 to 1900hrs Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1800hrs on Saturday. It shall not be used at any other time including on Sundays, bank or other public holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)”

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a part two storey, part single storey rear and side extension and roof extension incorporating rear dormer.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application on behalf of a resident of Birdwood Road.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        A similar application for a nearby property had been restricted by this committee.

    ii.        Although, each application is considered on its merit but this produces inconsistent decisions.

   iii.        Development would result in a massive, featureless wall in front of the kitchen window.

  iv.        Loss of light.

   v.        Report contains errors regarding the angle of shadow from the proposed new roof.

  vi.        Would result in overshadowing and overlooking.

 

Mr Bautin, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Hipkin proposed deferring the application to allow a site visit to be carried out. Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the proposal.

 

The proposition was lost by 5 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

The Committee received an application for a non material amendment.

 

The application sought approval for a non material amendment on application 14/1938/S73 to allow for a sliding door on the Milton Street (front) elevation of the approved convenience store which comprises part of "Block B".

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for the non material amendment in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of 2 semi-detached dwellings following the demolition of existing garages.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Planning Officer stated that an additional condition would be added regarding the minimum height of the velux windows.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Burnside.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Access routes and increased traffic would create problems.

    ii.        Concerns about adding 2 additional properties to a very narrow lane.

   iii.        Additional parking would increase the risk of blocked roads and limited service vehicle access.

  iv.        Construction traffic would be a problem.

   v.        Overshadowing and overbearing.

  vi.        Impact on use of gardens.

 vii.        Overdevelopment of the area.

viii.        Questioned the shadow drawing in the pack.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1)  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.

 

“The velux windows at first-floor level serving the rooms labelled “Bed 2/ Home Office” shown on drawing number 15:172/15 Rev B, shall be installed at a height of no less than 1.7m above the finished floor level of the first floor.

Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/10 and 3/12).”

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the conversion of a dwelling house to two flats; single storey rear and side extensions; roof extension; rear dormer Juliet Balcony and demolition of existing outbuilding.

 

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.

 

The public is likely to be excluded during the discussion of this item by virtue of paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Planning Committee resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2 and one abstention)

 

      i.         Noted the contents of the report and the investigation that has taken place.

 

    ii.         After due consideration of the issues and advice contained within the report, that the Local Planning Authority confirmed it would not be seeking the formal revocation of planning permission.