Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Baigent. Councillor Green was present as the alternate.

Councillor Nethsingha gave apologies for the afternoon section and Councillor Holt was present as the alternate.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a Section 73 application.

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 (approved drawings of ref no: 17/0172/FUL (erection of a residential apartment development to be arranged within two blocks comprising of 10 x 2 bed units and 6 x 1 bed units along with car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings on the site) to include changes to the basement layout, introduction of roof lights, increase in height of block (370mm), alterations to windows on second floor units, and changes to the appearance of the east and west elevations.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Additional height would add to the impact of the building.

     ii.          Proposed density would impact amenity of neighbours.

   iii.          Additional windows would result in overlooking.

   iv.          Plant in basement would produce a noise nuisance.

    v.          Other developments in the area had already had a visual impact on the skyline.

   vi.          Requested mitigation such as frosted glazing and additional green measures, such as a hanging garden.

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

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

Members expressed concerned about disabled access and reduced designated disabled parking.

The Legal Adviser reminded Members that this was a Section 73 application and that they could only determine what was before them today.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions) to grant the application for Section 73 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.

Withdrawn from agenda.

The Committee received an application for prior approval under Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).

The application sought approval for construction of new gated east side stairway from Mill Road to provide access to train drivers walkway, including alterations to arches 5 and 6 to facilitate new sidings, walkway and passive provision for Chisholm Trail.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Supported the work being undertaken. Work needed to be done on the railway and Chisholm Trail.

     ii.          Expressed concern about details of the work programme and communication about it.

   iii.          Had followed progress to date.

   iv.          His concerns were available on the public file. They had not been addressed. Requested details to respond to these.

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

Mr Davies addressed the Committee in support of the application. He spoke as the County Council Officer delivering the Chisholm Trail. Network Rail were happy to accommodate the Chisholm Trail and deliver part of it as part of this planning application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for prior approval in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of 2no. houses to the rear of site. First floor side and rear extension to main house. Conversion of house to 1no. 3-bed and 1no. 1-bed flat.

The Planner corrected a typographical error in her report (agenda P108):

0.18 I am satisfied that the revised plans are accurate. The removal of the loft conversion and amendments to make the plans accurate has resulted in a minor increase decrease to scale, bulk and massing of the extensions to the host dwelling.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with the Planner’s view that “on balance” the application was acceptable.

     ii.          The amount of development was unacceptable in the proposed space/area. It was too dense, complex and overdevelopment of the site.

   iii.          Queried if the application met amenity space requirements in the new Local Plan.

   iv.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Access to the site (for people and bin collections). Also the impact of this on amenity space.

b.    Loss of privacy.

c.    A car free development was impractical due to the lack of local public transport.

Councillor Herbert (Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          7 sets of drawings had been received for the site as part of planning applications over 2 years.

     ii.          Councillor Herbert had received 200 emails in response to the 7 sets of drawings. He had expressed concerns about these to the Planning Department.

   iii.          The Council was working to the new Local Plan. The application appeared to have been considered against policies in the previous 2006 Local Plan. Suggested the development did not meet accessibility and amenity space requirements in the new Cambridge Local Plan.

   iv.          The development was not sustainable. By being car free, it also stopped families and disabled people buying properties on the site.

    v.          Families and disabled people would be interested in 3 bedroom properties, but access issues restricted emergency services and potential property owners who needed cars or buggies. There was no sensible way for people to get from their homes to the road (the access route was too small for the number of new/existing properties on-site).

   vi.          The Council supported car free developments. However it was impractical for this application. There was no reliable public transport nearby and property owners in Coleridge needed access to cars.

 vii.          Expressed concern that the application would set a poor precedent for further back garden developments.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed access to the house to the rear would generate unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, through activities including movement of bikes and bins, and deliveries, to the future occupiers of the 2 proposed flats and to the neighbouring property at 66 Coleridge Road which would result in a poor level of amenity for the residents of the flats and adjoining property. This would be contrary to policy 52 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

2.    The proposed flats would introduce additional built form in close proximity to the two roof lights in the neighbouring dwelling, no 62 Coleridge Road, this would result in an unacceptable degree of overshadowing and consequent loss of light to the living room of this dwelling and would unacceptable harm the amenities of this dwelling. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 53 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary a condition of permission to application 17/0675/FUL.

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 (approved drawings) of permission 17/0675/FUL (demolition of existing garages and erection of three 2bed dwellings with associated landscaping and access arrangements) to permit increase of building height due to site conditions.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to objections on the public file.

     ii.          Expressed concern that the original application had been given planning permission as this set a new precedent for heights of developments in the area as it was higher than neighbouring properties.

   iii.          The S73 application had been made after neighbours complained that 17/0675/FUL was not being built according to permission given.

   iv.          Queried why the Building Control Department had not realised the property was being built to a higher level than expected and taken enforcement action such as requiring the roof be redesigned to reduce the building height.

    v.          Queried why the building was put on a higher level instead of removing some of the earth before foundations were put in, as neighbours had done.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to grant the Section 73 application 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 change of use to a 9 bed HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) erection of a bin/bike store, and erection of a single storey rear extension.

Mr Li (Applicant) 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.

Withdrawn from agenda to address procedural issues.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of three dwellings and provision of access.

The Senior Planner updated his report by stating reference to the 2006 Local Plan should be discounted from conditions.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s report to include an informative that wildlife access gaps should be included in garden boundary treatments.

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 informative added regarding wildlife gaps in fences and the removal of references to the previous Local Plan policies from conditions to 3 to 8 and substituting as appropriate to those comparable policies of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

The Committee received a S73 application to a vary condition of permission application 16/2040/FUL.

The application sought approval for a S73 application to vary conditions 2 (approved drawings) and 6 (obscure glazing) of permission 16/2040/FUL (Erection of dwelling and creation of new vehicular access) to allow removal of approved basement, removal of the approved integrated garage and proposed replacement garage, bike store and bin store, proposed dormer window, non-obscured glazing on upper floor windows, additional tree planting along northern boundary, and associated internal and external alterations.

The Planner updated her report to introduce a new condition requiring the submission of sedum roof details.

Dr Wickham (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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus an additional condition requiring sedum roof details as follows:

10. Prior to construction of the garage, details of the proposed sedum roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the sedum roof will provide adequate surface water drainage (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 31 and 32).