Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Sarris and Nethsingha. Councillor Bird and Page-Croft were present as alternates.

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 declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2017

 

Minutes to follow

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 June were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a mixed used development comprising of a Day Nursery at ground floor and 40 self-contained 1 x bed student rooms at the rear and on the upper floors along with a vehicle drop-off zone, cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The nursery did not add to the community facilities because it would be replace a boxing club.

    ii.        The development would have a detrimental impact on its neighbours on Malta Road and Ruth Bagnall Court, they would be hemmed in which contravened planning policy.

   iii.        The light survey undertaken concluded that the new building would diminish light in some locations by 50%. Furthermore, no light assessment had been undertaken for some impacted residences on Malta Road.

  iv.        Commented that the application was not in keeping with the conservation area.

   v.        Once inhabited the development would cause noise and disturbance. From personal experience a management plan would not prevent noise in the area.

 

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

 

Councillors Smith, Barnett and Baigent (Ward Councillors) wrote a letter to the Committee about the application:

     i.        Supported the regeneration of the building and the inclusion of a nursery.

    ii.        It was felt that the community had not been listened to during the application process.

   iii.        Confirmed that they did not support the application, the area needed more residential accommodation rather than student accommodation.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

       i.        The proposed development would be in close proximity to the kitchen and living room windows within Ruth Bagnell Court. Due to the scale of the proposed building, it would result in the significant deterioration of daylight within north facing kitchen windows 4 and 7 (at first and ground floors) as identified in the ‘t16 Design Daylight and Sunlight Assessment’ of June 2017. Given that existing daylight levels within the kitchens are already limited, the impact would be to significantly reduce daylight into the kitchens further and thus harm the residential amenity of existing occupants. In combination with the loss of light, the south facing 4 storey part of the development onto Coleridge Road would be within 4m and 6m of the north elevation of flats within Ruth Bagnell Court. Kitchen and living room windows of flats in this development face north towards the Coleridge Road wing and the outlook from the single aspect living room windows of flat 11 and corresponding flats above and below this would be dominated by the proposed development to the extent that it would significantly enclose and harm the amenity of existing occupants. As such, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2016) policies 3/4 and 3/7 in that it is has failed to properly respond to its context, has failed to have proper regard for the constraints of the site and would fail to provide an acceptable relationship between existing and proposed buildings. As such, the proposal is also contrary to NPPF (2012) guidance at paragraph 17 in that it would fail to safeguard the amenity of existing occupants.

      ii.        The proposed courtyard space for the scheme would be small, cramped and feel hemmed-in for potential users. Given that the external environment to the site is onto a busy highway, the amenity space provided by the courtyard is inadequate and would provide little relief to the busy external environment. To this extent, the proposal represents a poor and inflexible layout and poor design and would fail to provide an external space that would be enjoyable to use for proposed existing and future users of it. As such, the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/11 and is contrary to the NPPF (2012) at paragraph 17 in that it would fail to secure a high quality external space design and good standard of amenity for future users.

 

Delegated authority was also granted for officers to complete s.106 if an appeal is made.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for revisions to an existing application 16/1299/FUL to permit the subdivision of unit F1 to create an additional one bed flat, thereby increasing the total number of units to 14, together with amendment to 1.8m high obscure glazed screen to be replaced with louvered screen.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Suggested that dividing one flat into two brought no benefits apart from financial gain to the developer.

     ii.          Surrounding residents were led to believe that the plans for an exterior gate were going to be abandoned because it would cause disruption to the local area. However, the current plans still include a gate.  Suggested that the committee added a condition to remove the gate from the application.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation and for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the change of use from the implemented use as a class D1 dance school/studio (granted under planning permission 14/1252/FUL) to general educational use within use class D1 including limited alterations to the external appearance of the building & associated landscaping works

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from 4 residents who live in the surrounding area:

 

The representations covered the following issues:

     i.        If the application for change of use was granted it would stop public access to the building and the residents would lose it as a community facility.

    ii.        Claimed that the applicants were not currently adhering to the conditions granted in the original permission and therefore should not be granted further permission.

   iii.        Local dance schools were looking for new premises but had had not been made aware of this building, they were not encouraging community groups to use it.

  iv.        The applicants had not applied for a certificate of lawfulness because they could not prove that the building was being used in the manner that the original permission had granted.

   v.        Potentially losing the community facility had caused a lot of distress amongst the community; they all considered it to be a very important facility.

  vi.        Commented that if the changes were made to the units on the roof they would still be visible for half the year when the surrounding trees were not in leaf.

 

The tenant of Cambridge School of Visual and Performing Arts addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

     i.        Suggested that the conditions under the original 2004 permission had not been met therefore the applicant should be subject to the 1997 conditions. 

    ii.        Supported the view that the current planning permission should only be granted if pre-commencement conditions had been discharged and use of the premises was solely a dance studio.

   iii.        The loss of the community facility and protected open space had a damaging impact on residents.

  iv.        Commented that the applicants had a history of cutting corners and undertaking unauthorised work.

   v.        Suggested that the application did not preserve the character of the conservation area.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to defer the application to be brought back to committee with two additional reports dealing with the issues separately ie one report regarding whether permission 14/1252/FUL had been lawfully implemented and another regarding the impact of the roof plant.

 

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use of first and second floor of Block B and ground floor DDA room (no. G01) in Block A from Student accommodation to Student accommodation and/or Apart-hotel (sui generis) – in the alternative.

 

The Principal Planner asked for an addendum regarding s106 for student use to be added to planning conditions.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from local residents.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Previous schemes for the site had been rejected.

     ii.          Had initially thought the development would not impact on neighbours, but now believed it would through “backdoor” changes.

   iii.          Was unaware of a transport assessment for the site.

   iv.          Suggested the application did not meet similar criteria to similar developments in the area.

    v.          Various local residents had replied to the planning consultation as the application would exacerbate existing parking issues and impact on peoples’ ability to travel for work/leisure.

   vi.          The application led to a loss of confidence in Council processes.

 

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

 

Councillor Scutt (Arbury Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Parking and transport.

a.    Parking was at a premium in the area.

b.    The hotel would attract guests with cars, but there was no room for parking.

c.    A high volume of traffic and 3 schools in the area led to safety concerns.

     ii.          Disability and pastoral care.

a.    The application could breach conditions of the Equalities Act 2010.

b.    Students and guests could mix in part of the hotel. It would be more appropriate if they had separate sections.

   iii.          Process and precedent.

a.    The developer appeared to be able to put in a proposal then seek a change of use to get a different application.

b.    If the above point occurred, this would set a precedent for other developments to seek change of use.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Unanimously resolved to defer the application to a future committee and to resume with a report from officers concerning potential reasons for refusal in respect of:

 

       i.          Loss of student accommodation with reference to the Student Study and NPPG.

     ii.          Lack of commercial vehicle and servicing provision as per policy 8/9.

   iii.          Loss of disabled student accommodation and the appropriateness of the location of the aparthotel wheelchair accessible room (policies 3/12(b), 3/7(m), 7/10(d)

   iv.          Impact of parking from hotel visitors on the amenity of local residents (policy 3/4).

The Committee received an S73 application.

 

The application sought approval to amend approved plans of planning permission 14/0607/FUL (as amended by 16/0146/NMA) to permit minor material amendment with the repositioning boundary adjacent to no. 3, erection of meter cupboard, minor alterations to fenestration of rear apartment block and regularisation of plans of frontage building to reflect changes approved under application 16/0990/FUL.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from local residents.

 

The representations covered the following concerns:

       i.          Design out of character with the area.

     ii.          Dominance over neighbour’s garden.

   iii.          Removal of trees and hedges.

   iv.          Suggested the wrong plans had been submitted in the application. The developer would build on land up to the boundary to take advantage of the error.

    v.          Converting a building had less carbon impact than demolishing it.

   vi.          The application would exacerbate existing parking issues.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the S73 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for change of use to 115 & 117 Grantchester Meadows including partial demolition of outbuildings, refurbishment, internal and external works and extensions to create 22 rooms and 1 apartment for post-graduate student House of Multiple Occupation.

 

The Principal Planner updated the Planner’s report as follows:

       i.          The Applicant had offered amendments:

a.    Para 8.17: 2 not 3 properties would be affected.

b.    Para 8.52: Agreement to prevent no.8 or 9 South Green Road and 2 Tenison Road for a period of 15 years so they are not used for any other purpose other than C3 dwellings.

     ii.          The application was subject to a s106 agreement.

   iii.          A management plan was required for student accommodation.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          115-117 Grantchester Meadows were attractive family houses that would be lost if the application were approved. This would harm the character of the area.

     ii.          Residents were concerned that St Catherine’s College were trying to buy up Green End Road and set up a gated community.

   iii.          The Council was going against its own policies in paragraphs 5.4 and 8.5 of the Officer’s report. Residents disagreed that there were special circumstances to do this, as referred to in the Officer’s report.

 

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

 

Councillor Gehring (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          This application was an exception to agreed policies which could set a precedent where exceptions became the norm.

     ii.          The College was putting in proposals that would not be ‘good neighbours’ with residential areas.

   iii.          Suggested the College was trying to establish a mini-campus in Newnham.

   iv.          More accommodation was being planned than the 2% post graduate expansion per annum which the College said it would aim for.

    v.          The proposal was unsuitable for the area. Queried what would happen if more accommodation was supplied than was demanded. The application could become a partial hotel like an earlier application consider by committee (Block B Student Castle 1 Milton Road).

   vi.          Building would take place in a conservation area.

 

The Committee:

 

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

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason:

 

Notwithstanding the material considerations of the case, the proposed student accommodation would result in the loss of two existing dwellings. This would conflict with Local Plan (2006) policy 7/7 which seeks to support windfall student hostel development subject to it not resulting in the loss of family residential accommodation. The proposal would also conflict with policy 5/4 which does not permit the loss of existing dwellings to other uses unless it can be demonstrated it complies with the criteria in this policy. The proposal would not comply with any part of the criteria as set out in policy 5/4. Therefore, the principle of the proposed development is unacceptable and the loss of the existing housing would be contrary to policies 5/4 and 7/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of one 4 x bed dwelling along with access, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

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 a single and part two storey rear extension, first floor side extension. Pitch roof to existing single storey front and side flat roof. Single storey front extension.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Had no objections to the development in principle.

     ii.          Expressed the following concerns about this specific application:

a.    Scale, finish and appropriateness of setting.

b.    Disliked design/style and materials proposed. These would be out of character with the area.

c.    The building had already been extended and would be made bigger.

d.    Increased vehicular movements.

e.    Impact on residents’ amenities.

f.      The building was flooded in 2001 so developing the site further seemed unwise.

 

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

 

Councillor Gehring (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The street scene was important in the area.

     ii.          The application would be out of proportion with neighbours.

   iii.          Expressed concern about proposed materials.

   iv.          Said that work had already started before planning permission had been granted. Enforcement Officers were investigating.

    v.          Approval of this development would set the precedent for large developments like No. 2 Dane Drive.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) 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 2-bed dwelling attached to No. 81 with associated rear garden and parking.

 

The Senior Planner advised the Committee that further objections had been received from No. 75 and new objections from No. 32 Derwent Close since the amendment sheet was published.

 

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 a new dwelling on the land adjacent to 55 Alpha Road.

 

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

 

The local resident suggested that Councillor Hipkin had fettered his discretion during a site visit in February 2017 by suggesting there should be a house on the site. Councillor Hipkin stated this was not the case, but for the avoidance of doubt withdrew from the meeting for this item and Councillor Smart took the Chair.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There was some confusion in the report about application details eg building height.

     ii.          Suggested the wrong plans had been included in the drawing pack.

   iii.          There should be no house on the plot as it would take over amenity space.

   iv.          Referred to para 8.3 of the Officer’s report and when planning conditions should apply.

    v.          Said the plot was divided from No. 55 pre-2002.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Specific concerns:

a.    Took issue with Conservation Officer support for the application (para 8.6). Particularly having a separate dwelling on-site.

b.    The site was in a prominent location in the conservation area.

c.    Large footprint of the application.

d.    Loss of garden land, bio diversity and amenity space.

     ii.          Asked for clarification of NPPF Policy 3 (garden development) and the impact on this garden development.

   iii.          There were historic conditions not to split the site from No. 61 as this application proposed to do.

   iv.          Asked for the application to be deferred until all queries regarding plot ownership were clarified.

 

The Senior Planner said that if the land was used in the same way for 10 years then it could legally be considered as a separate site.

 

The City Development Manager recommended to Committee that Cambridge Local Plan (2006) Policy 3/10 was not relevant and that references to 3/10 in paragraphs 8.7, 8.18 and 8.22 should be ignored.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 1 no. two bedroom dwelling along with cycle parking and associated landscaping

 

The Planning Assistant clarified the application was now 4.4m in height.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The application was sited too close to the boundary fence.

     ii.          It faces 8 buildings in Dunsmore Close.

   iii.          Concern about being boxed in by big buildings.

   iv.          Increased noise levels.

    v.          No. 15-18 Dunsmore Close expressed concern the application would exacerbate existing sewerage problems.

   vi.          Exacerbation of existing parking problems.

 

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

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a construction traffic management condition.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

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 in relation to construction traffic management.

The Committee received an S73 application.

 

The application sought approval to vary conditions 16 and 17 of planning permission 14/1248/FUL to allow the construction of a conservation rooflight in the rear roofscape and the window on the rear elevation at first floor level to be obscure glazed for the bottom 1.7m only.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the S73 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.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use from C4 small HMO to sui generis (Large HMO) with 7 bedrooms. Part single, part two storey rear extension, attic conversion including flat roofed dormer with hip to gable. New bin and bike storage to the rear.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of six 2-bed and one 3-bed affordable houses, associated landscaping, parking spaces and rear gardens following demolition of existing garages.

 

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.

The Officer will give a verbal report

The Committee received a verbal update from the Planning Enforcement Officer regarding the Wests Garage, 217 Newmarket Road Temporary Stop Notice:

       i.          Planning permission was given for student accommodation, subject to contaminated land use conditions.

     ii.          The Planning Enforcement Team received a lot of reports about noxious fumes over the 2017 May Bank Holiday so officers visited the site.

   iii.          Officers found unexpected contamination in the form of a post-Victorian well that had not been previously found in surveys undertaken. This acted as a conduit from contaminated land to uncontaminated land, so the site no longer complied with planning conditions.

   iv.          The contractors were asked to stop work as per condition 8, they did not, so a Temporary Stop Notice was served on 8^th June. No further work was to be undertaken for 28 days maximum until breach of planning condition had been resolved. Contractors were obliged to submit details on how they would proceed. They put in a formal request to go back on site as of 21 June.

    v.          Residents raised further concerns that traffic management plan and construction hours conditions were not being adhered to so Planning Enforcement officers were investigating.

The Chair advised the Complainants they each had 3 minutes speaking time, plus an additional 2 minutes for supplementary points.

 

The Committee received representations by the Complainants who had lodged the complaint with the LGO.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

     i.        Tabled handouts:

·        South Cambridgeshire District Council Householder Design Guide.

·        Mendip District Council guidance for Members: Exemptions Under Schedule 12a Of The Local Government Act 1972 (As Substituted By The Local Government (Access To Information) (Variation) Order 2006 (SI 2006/88): Exempt Information.

    ii.        Asked for his concerns to be minuted.

   iii.        Took issue with speaking time being limited to 5 minutes per person, 15 minutes would have been more appropriate given the complexity of the case.

  iv.        Referred to LGO comments in the report presented to committee, referred to the ICI recommendations that the original planning permission should be revoked.  Questioned why this recommendation has not been followed.

   v.        Took issue with the way the City Council handled the planning application (which lead to the LGO complaint) and felt the Complainants had not received natural justice.

  vi.        Listed concerns about how the planning application decision, revocation report and their complaint had been dealt with by the City Council. Made reference to feelings of bullying and intimidation.

 vii.        Queried why visual dominance was not considered in the planning application.

viii.        Listed concerns that had arisen as a result of building work such as:

a.   Noise and dust.

b.   Work was estimated to take longer than originally planned.

  ix.        Said there was public interest in how the City Council used resources (eg time and money) in this planning application.

   x.        Asked for an apology from the City Council for stress caused to the Complainants.

 

The Committee received a report stating the LGO has upheld a complaint relating to the determination of a planning application for a single storey front extension, part two storey/part single storey rear extension following demolition of existing garden room and rear dormer roof extension. The LGO found that the failures identified amounted to ‘injustice’.

 

The City Development Manager supplemented her introduction to the report to respond to a point made by the Complainant. The Independent Complaints Investigator had asked the Planning Committee to reconsider the Planning Officer’s original decision, but did not have the power to revoke the decision.

 

The Complainant raised some supplementary points:

     i.        Noted that the Officer’s report and introduction correctly identified the title of the Independent Complaints Officer. This had incorrectly been referred to as the Internal Complaints Officer in previous reports and correspondence.

    ii.        Took issue with details in the report that Officers had visited neighbours before 6 April 2016.

   iii.        Considered that the application of schedule 21 (exclusion of the press and public) in relation to the revocation report was a disgrace

  iv.        Re-iterated concerns about how the City Council handled the case.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to accept the officer recommendation to note that:

     i.        The LGO has upheld a complaint relating to the determination of a planning application.

    ii.        In these circumstances the Head of Legal Services as the Council’s Monitoring Officer has an obligation to report the findings to Council and that Committee is satisfied with the action that has been taken (set out in Section 4 of the Officer’s report).

 

The Chair advised the Complainant they had 3 minutes speaking time, plus an additional 2 minutes for supplementary points.

 

The Committee received representation by the Complainant who had lodged the complaint with the LGO.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with the way the City Council handled the planning application (which led to the LGO complaint).

     ii.          Referred to the LGO report and felt the City Council had not satisfactorily responded.

   iii.          Took issue with:

·       Details in the Planning Officer’s report.

·       Measurements supplied by the Applicant.

·       The City Council’s response to the Complainant’s concerns about details in the Planning Officer’s report.

   iv.          The LGO report did not go far enough in response to issues raised.

 

The Committee received a report stating the LGO has upheld a complaint relating to the determination of a planning application for two storey side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension (following demolition of garage). The LGO found that the failures identified amounted to ‘injustice’

 

The Complainant raised some supplementary points:

       i.          Re-iterated that wrong information had been included in the Planning Officer’s report which Planning Committee had based a decision upon.

     ii.          The Planning Committee should hold Officers to account and ensure reports were accurate. The Committee had a responsibility to ensure that residents were protected from injustice.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to accept the officer recommendation to note that:

       i.          The LGO has upheld a complaint relating to the determination of a planning application.

     ii.          In these circumstances the Head of Legal Services as the Council’s Monitoring Officer has an obligation to report the findings to Council and that Committee is satisfied with the action that has been taken (set out in Section 4 of the Officer’s report).