Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Tunnacliffe and Nethsingha.

 

Councillor Holt was present as an alternate.

 

Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

No interests were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1^st February  2017. Minutes fo the 1 March 2017 to follow.

The minutes of the meeting of the 1^st February 2017 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

 

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 of ref:14/0052/FUL.

 

The application sought to replace the approved drawings with new drawings that are listed in the cover letter dated 8th November 2016.

 

Councillor Austin (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee regarding the application and made the following comments:

 

       i.          The number of representations received does not fully reflect the strength of feeling in the area.

     ii.          The Local Plan had identified this space as a community space.

   iii.          Amendment not acceptable.

   iv.          Proposal was out of keeping with the area.

    v.          Care home would suffer due to the unattractive appearance of the building.

   vi.          Increased height would be overbearing.

 vii.          Cycle parking was inadequate.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application to vary condition 2 in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers including:

 

Additional informative: ‘Clause 8 of the Section 106 of planning permission 14/0052/FUL, links this Section 73 permission to the approved Section 106.

 

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition number 2 of permission 14/1252/FUL.

 

The application sought approval to permit revised cycle and bin storage locations, revised internal configurations and revised location of plant from the eastern elevation to the roof.

 

The Planning Officer updated his report recommendation by referring to pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet.

 

The Access Officer made the following points in response to the Committee’s request for information about access:

       i.          The entrance was acceptable.

     ii.          The gradient of the ramp from access paths was fairly steep, but acceptable in accordance with personal evacuation plan criteria. The ramps/paths were an existing feature so not a material consideration in the application.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·       Resident of Edward Street.

·       York Street.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to Local Plan policies referenced in the officer’s report and suggested they had not been met.

     ii.          Expressed concern about:

a.    The gradient of the paths used for emergency access/egress. Queried if these complied with building and disability regulations.

b.    Noise from the site.

c.    The treatment of open space in Petersfield Ward.

d.    Planting on the building roof.

e.    Intensification of site use.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to various concerns expressed by residents such as the impact of roof planting on the area.

     ii.          Paths had been built on areas of general open space, they should have been built on areas controlled by the applicant. As such, the paths should be removed and relocated.

   iii.          Officers had given advice that planting should be located on the side of the building, which the applicant had ignored and built on the roof. This was inappropriate.

   iv.          The building did not meet Conservation Area policies such as 4/39. Referred to comments from the Conservation Team as listed in the officer’s report.

    v.          Asked for the application to be refused.

 

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 plant and its associated screening, because of its length, height and visibility from surrounding streets and from St Matthew’s Piece, appears as a cumbersome addition to the roof top of the existing building and is of poor design. Its presence is incongruous and the external mirrored screen finish proposed would only serve to draw attention to it. Painting the plant as a substitute for the screen would not be appropriate and a condition seeking an alternative screening detail would not overcome the impact of its presence. As such, the plant installation as existing and as proposed with the mirrored screen finish would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and surrounding park and open space contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/11. The harm would be less than substantial to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole but would not be outweighed by any identifiable public benefit arising from its installation and is therefore contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012). 

     ii.          The proposed paths and associated spurs off the east side of the building and within the protected open space and Conservation Area unnecessarily fragment its configuration and are harmful to its former soft grassed character and setting. The former character of the protected open space provided a continuous grassed area connecting the protected open space from the east of the building to the south side of the building and to the remainder of St Matthew’s Piece. As a result of their installation, the paths appear at odds with the former setting of the building within its landscaped environment and reduce the flexibility of the open space for recreational use by members of the public and users of the building. They do not serve to enhance either the use or setting of the protected open space and only serve the building for means of fire escape. As such, the paths are contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 4/2 and 4/11 and are contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012).

 

The City Development Manager sought delegated authority to commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate as per page 74 of the officer report. This was agreed nem con.

Officers had indicated pre-committee this item may need to be deferred because two of the third parties had not been notified of the committee date and their public speaking rights in accordance with adopted procedures. however parties were contacted so the application could be determined.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a detached house and detached two storey annex consisting of four one bed self-contained flats following demolition of existing dwelling and annex.

 

The Planning Officer updated his report recommendation by referring to pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Impact on neighbour through the permanent location of a barbeque.

     ii.          The building of a covered walkway would impact on neighbours’ access to gutters for maintenance work, and lead to a sense of enclosure.

   iii.          Boundary treatment.

   iv.          The impact of piling on neighbours’ properties.

    v.          Plant room and impact on trees.

   vi.          Exacerbation of existing street parking issues by the new development.

 

Councillor Hipkin proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a replacement planting condition.

 

This amendment was 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus:

·       Additional condition 20 (as per the amendment sheet).

·       Additional planting condition added:

 

“If within a period of five years from the date of commencement of development of this permission the beech hedge along the south-western boundary of the application site, or any tree or shrub planted as a replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by the proper maintenance of existing and/or new landscape features. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/12 and 3/11)”

 

·       Condition 18 (listed in the officer’s report) to be removed.

This item was deferred to Planning Committee Meeting being held on 26 April 2017 because not all third parties had been notified of the 5 April committee date and their public speaking rights in accordance with adopted procedures.

 

This item was deferred to Planning Committee Meeting being held on 26 April 2017 because not all third parties had been notified of the 5 April committee date and their public speaking rights in accordance with adopted procedures.

 

The Committee received a section 73 application to vary condition 1 (drawings) of permission reference 15/0065/FUL

 

The application sought approval to amend the defined curtilage of the property.

 

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 Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a two bedroom dwelling to rear with access off North Street.

 

Mr Harney (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately.

 

The Committee refused the application for planning permission in accordance with the following officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

Unanimously resolved:

 

       i.          The proposal, by virtue of its height, length and siting, would result in a large and overly dominant and elongated built form when viewed from Canterbury Street and North Street. The large expanse of blank, unrelieved façade would negatively impact on the streetscene and would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As a result, the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/10, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 134.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3):

 

     ii.          The proposal, by virtue of its height, length and proximity to the neighbouring gardens of nos. 47 and 51 Histon Road, would create a large enclosing and dominant form that would unreasonably curtail the enjoyment of the use of adjacent garden areas and, for no. 51 Histon Road also, unreasonably overshadow it. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect on neighbouring amenity, contrary to policies 3/4, 3/10 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the raising of ridge, eaves and chimneys and formation of box dormer to rear with Juliet balcony, single storey extension to side and rear, first floor rear extension and subdivision of enlarged dwellings to form 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 1 bed apartment. Bike and bin store and fencing to rear garden.

 

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 Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a new dwelling.

 

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.

 

 

This item was deferred to Planning Committee Meeting being held on 26 April 2017 because not all third parties had been notified of the 5 April committee date and their public speaking rights in accordance with adopted procedures.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension and a mixed front boundary wall and fence at 1.2m high.

 

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 Committee received an application to vary the s106 Agreement to remove the requirement for the car parking scheme – application reference 13/1461/FUL.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendations that:

       i.          The s106 Agreement associated with application ref. 13/1461/FUL be varied to remove Schedule 5 (Car Parking Scheme).

     ii.          Delegated authority is granted to planning officers to make necessary consequential changes to the s106 Agreement in conjunction with advice from legal officers.