Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Holt. Councillor Page-Croft was present as alternative.

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.

Minutes to follow.  

The minutes of the meeting of the 26^th April 2017 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the construction of two artificial grass pitches (AGPs), installation of floodlighting to both pitches, replacement fencing to existing pitch, extension of balcony on western elevation of the pavilion, insertion of two sets of doors on north elevation of pavilion, replacement of pitched roof with flat roof on scorer's hut, construction of an electrical substation, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and drainage works.

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

An error regarding the nature of Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s representation was noted.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Spoke on behalf of herself, and other residents the development would impact on.

    ii.        Residents did not object to the extension of sports provision. However, they objected to the increased lighting.

   iii.        Site had a long planning history and previous lighting applications had been rejected.

  iv.        Welcomed the comments regarding the impact on Coton footpath.

   v.        From October to March residents would experience no natural dusk.

  vi.        The provision of additional pitches should mean that additional floodlight hours are not needed.

 vii.        Aspect of open space would be lost.

viii.        Horizon views were important.

Karen Pearce, Assistant Director of Sport at the University of Cambridge and Tim Ireland of Cambridge City Hockey Club, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Nethsingha proposed an amendment to condition 16 of the Officer’s recommendation that the existing permitted lighting hours be retained.

This amendment was lost by 3 votes to 2.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 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 and subject to the amendments above. Conditions 17 and 19 are deleted, and renumber 18 and 20-26 accordingly)

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of extensions to Norfolk Building for common room, 16 student rooms, college offices and research space, cafe and kitchens; erection of 6  family accommodation units; landscaping and cycle parking following demolition of maisonettes.

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

Matthew Bullock, Master of St Edmunds College, 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and subject to condition 18 being reworded as follows:

“No new windows shall be constructed in the existing building, nor existing windows altered until drawings at a scale of 1:50 of details of new or altered sills, lintels, jambs, transoms, and mullions have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid harm to the special interest of the Conservation Area. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 4/11)”

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the installation of a 20 sq metres extension to flat 6 and alterations to the internal layout of flat 5 - minor material amendment to application 15/1529/FUL for the erection of 10 dwellings.

The Committee noted pre-committee amendments to the recommendation set out on the amendment sheet.

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 erection of five self-contained studios and associated works.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 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 a two storey side and rear extension and the conversion of the extended property to 2 x two bed flats.

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

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          The application would exacerbate existing parking and access issues, particularly as a local school was located nearby.

     ii.          Impact of the application on residents’ amenities:

a.    Noise.

b.    Loss of light.

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 change of use.

The application sought approval for property to become a seven person house in multiple occupation (sui generis) following proposed rear single storey annexe and single-storey rear extension (approved under reference 16/0613/FUL).

The Planning Officer updated his report by recommending an additional condition the the annexe, shall be used in association with the HMO accommodation at No.147 Coldhams Lane only.

Mrs Oliver (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use 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:

“The annexe, hereby permitted, shall be used in association with the HMO accommodation at No.147 Coldhams Lane only and shall not be occupied as a separate independent residential unit.

Reason – Use as an independent dwelling is likely to give rise to an unsatisfactory level of privacy and residential amenity for occupiers of both the HMO and dwelling. This application has been assessed on the basis that the annexe would be used in conjunction with the HMO so the merits of a separate dwelling have not been considered (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, Policies 3/7, 4/13 and 5/7).”

The Committee received an application for change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use of the site from a three-bedroom dwellinghouse to an eight person house in multiple occupation.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use from Retail (Use Class A1) to Tattoo Parlour (Sui Generis Use).

Mr Haupt (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use 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 listed building consent.

The application sought approval for installation of 6 ‘iVision’ advertising display units within the station foyer

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The arches in the station provide a distinct style of architecture.

     ii.          The advertising panels would negatively impact on the station architecture and views of Cambridge from the station.

   iii.          Took issue with:

a.    Screens/displays being used for adverts.

b.    Size of the screens proposed for use in a listed building.

c.    Proposed location of the 4 screens near the (listed building) entrance (the 2 near the platform caused no objections).

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason:

The proposed advertising display units by virtue of their number, size and position would have an adverse impact on the significance and special interest of the Listed station building. In particular the four advertising display units adjacent to the doors fronting Station Square would detract from the distinctive arched openings and in so doing would fail to preserve this particular feature of special architectural interest.  These four advertising display units would also fail to preserve the setting of the Station which is a prominent public building within Cambridge.  The application is therefore contrary to Policy 4/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and the public benefit arising from the installation of the advertising display units does not outweigh the harm to the listed building.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a first floor extension to create a 1 bed flat above existing ground floor flat.

The City Development Manager read a written statement on behalf of the Applicant 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 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 5 x one bed dwellings with associated landscaping following the demolition of the existing bungalow on site.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a representative of Gainsborough Close Residents Association.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Objected to the proposed houses opening onto, and therefore getting access by, a privately owned path.

     ii.          Queried if the Council would assume maintenance responsibility for the path if planning approval was given to the application.

   iii.          Suggested construction work would block the path so queried how access would be retained.

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 Committee received a Section 73 application.

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 of planning permission 13/1799/FUL dated 06/03/2014 for the erection of a three bedroom bungalow to allow the relocation of the dwelling.

The Planning Officer referred to amended conditions 6 and 7 set out on the amendment sheet.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the Section 73 application in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

Delegated powers were given so Officers could update the wording of conditions 6 and 7 to incorporate the latest legislation and to specify the relevant use classes.

The Committee received an application for retrospective temporary change of use to office (B1A).

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for retrospective temporary change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

Councillor Blencowe withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

Councillor Hipkin left the meeting and Councillor Smart took the Chair.

Councillor Holland joined as the alternate.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a two storey rear extension and change of use from C4 HMO (6 persons) to No.4 one bedroom flats.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously - 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.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

The application sought approval for change of use from a single dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (sui generis) and erection of single and two storey extensions to the rear. Also the erection of cycle and bin stores and a 1.5 metre high fence to front.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use 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 confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 01/2017 that relates to Lovell Lodge Hotel.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.

The Committee received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 05/2017 that relates to 16 Brunswick Gardens.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application.

The Committee received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 03/2017 that relates to Hornbeam House.

Members were also asked to decide whether or not to allow the tree works proposed in application 17/198/TTPO.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendations and grant permission:

(i) To confirm the TPO that was the subject of the application without amendment.

(ii) To allow the works detailed in tree work application 17/198/TTPO, subject to condition.