Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes To
follow. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2019 were currently with officers
for comment. |
||||||||||
17/1748/FUL - 45 Cavendish Avenue PDF 174 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
erection of a single storey 2 bedroom dwelling house to the rear of 45
Cavendish Avenue. The Committee received a representation in objection
to the application from a Cavendish Avenue resident. The representation covered the following
issues: i.
The Objector was speaking on
behalf of various residents. There were many objections from residents in the
area. ii.
The application would have an adverse
effect on the character of the area. a.
Concern about design, scale and
massing. b.
Other properties in the area had
extensions, but no subdivision of land. This would be the first in the area. iii.
Concern over loss of green
corridor. a.
High risk of flooding in the area. b.
Mitigation measures were not
sustainable. Referred to comments by the Drainage Officer. There was
insufficient space available to provide compensatory flood storage. A pumped
drainage system was not a sustainable form of drainage and would increase
residual flood risk. Mr McKeown
(Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor McGerty (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application:
i.
Expressed concern about the application.
ii.
The new Local Plan was recently adopted. The
Planning Committee should be confident in applying its policies.
iii.
The application was an overdevelopment of the site
when compared to existing properties in the area.
iv.
It was a nice design in an inappropriate location
as it was out of character with the area.
v.
Two bedrooms were listed in the application but the
design could accommodate three. The house was designed for the needs of the
current proposed occupant, but occupants and their needs may change in future.
The design should clearly label the number of occupants, not just the number of
bedrooms. The ‘snug’ had the potential to be another bedroom.
vi.
Queried if appropriate amenity space was provided.
The garden could be overlooked by neighbours so there was no private amenity
space. vii.
Policy 6.40 (subdivision of land) was a material
consideration for this application. viii.
There were no other back garden developments in
Cavendish Avenue. The application would have a negative impact on the green
corridor and ‘green lung’ function of the area. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to
approve the application. Councillors McQueen and Page-Croft left due to
personal commitments after the vote to reject the Officer’s recommendation. Unanimously
resolved (by 7 votes to 0)
to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the
following reasons:
i.
The north side of Cavendish Avenue is characterised
by a mix of semi-detached and detached houses with established large rear
gardens. The proposed dwelling would occupy a sizeable footprint within the
rear garden of 45 Cavendish Avenue, and both the existing and proposed
properties would have relatively small and constrained garden areas compared to
surrounding houses in Cavendish Avenue. The proposed development, by virtue of
the design, scale and footprint of the dwelling, therefore fails to respond
positively to its context and detracts from the character and appearance of the
area, contrary to Policies 52, 55 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
ii.
By virtue of the location of the dwelling relative
to surrounding properties, the amenity spaces to the front and rear of the
dwelling would be poorly lit and overlooked by houses in Cavendish Avenue and
Magnolia Close respectively. The development therefore fails to provide an
acceptable quality living environment and standard of amenity and privacy for
future occupiers, contrary to Policies 50, 52, 56 and 57 of the Cambridge Local
Plan 2018. Resolved (3
votes to 3 with 1 abstention – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to discount the
following reason for refusal: Drainage (reference Policies 31 and 32 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and NPPF paragraph 163). |
||||||||||
17/0705/FUL - The Bell Educational Trust Ltd, Red Cross Lane PDF 205 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for installation of a
replacement Multi Use Games Area (MUGA). The Principal Planner corrected two errors in the Officer’s report:
i.
A Landscape Strategy compliance condition needed to
be included.
ii.
A majority of the boundary fence was 4m high (not
3m). The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
There were no other MUGAs close to
developments ie flats/houses where people lived. ii.
It was too close to residents and
the public highway. This led to safety concerns. Sport England guidance said
the MUGA should be located further away. iii.
Implementing the MUGA would lead
to a loss of light and view for residents. iv.
The streetscene would be destroyed
as trees were replaced with a very high fence. v.
Noise from football games would
impact on neighbouring properties. vi.
Suggested there were errors and
estimates in the noise report. The apartment block was incorrectly identified
within the original documentation as 2 storey rather than 3 storey properties. Ms Sutton (Applicant) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. Councillor McGerty (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application:
i.
Thanked the Bell School for engaging with
councillors and officers.
ii.
The MUGA was large. Referred to P7 & 8 of the
drawing pack. Queried if the diagram showed how close the MUGA would be to
local flats. The site context had changed since the tennis courts (MUGA site)
were put in.
iii.
Suggested the flats would not have been built if it
were clear they would have less amenity space (due to the MUGA).
iv.
S106 funding criteria required sports amenity space
to be available to the Bell school and residents. The current segmented games
area was acceptable. Queried why the segments needed to be combined into one
large MUGA. This could cause more noise than the segmented games areas. Councillor Pippas (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application:
i.
The Bell School sold its football pitch and flats
were then subsequently built. The flats would now be 4m away from the proposed
wooden fence around the MUGA.
ii.
People bought the flats expecting one thing and
could get another.
iii.
Suggested the MUGA was being developed to allow
more flats to be put on the (former) football pitch land. Queried why other
alternatives such as planting flowers could not be implemented.
iv.
The MUGA would create noise for flat occupiers.
v.
Residents were concerned that balls flying over the
fence surrounding the MUGA would go into peoples’ dwellings or onto the public
highway. Councillor Baigent left the committee as he felt unwell. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 6 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, with an additional condition
requiring compliance with the landscape plan and accompanying management
strategy. |
||||||||||
18/0907/FUL - 50 St Stephens Place and 51 Canterbury Street PDF 234 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of an
office building and the erection of a development of nine flats. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a St Stephen’s Place resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Referred to speaking notes and
attached diagram that were tabled at committee. ii.
The scale and massing of the
development constituted an over-development of site. iii.
Requested the proposal be deferred
until a daylight / sunlight study could be undertaken. iv.
The application did not answer
objections from the last iteration, which had been refused. There were
unresolved concerns about car parking, access and the party wall. v.
The application would affect the
character of the area. The Committee noted points in the written statement from Castle Ward
Councillors Holt and Payne. The statement was tabled at committee. It referred
to: 1.
Significant reduction of light to St Stephen’s
Place and 51 Canterbury Street. 2.
The proposed development would be out of character
with the surrounding area. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 6 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. |
||||||||||
19/0051/PIP - Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority, 18 Vinery Road PDF 98 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
planning permission in principle. The
application sought approval for a residential development of 9 dwellings. Mr Mead (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 6 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. |
||||||||||
18/1945/FUL - Unit 2, 61 Ditton Walk PDF 115 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for change of use from B1 to flexible B1/D1 use. The Senior Planner corrected a typographical error in her report: REFUSE for the following reasons: 1. The proposed flexible B1/D1 use does not guarantee the return of the
B1(c) floorspace
at the end of the 10 year period for the flexible permission. As a result the
proposal has the potential to result in the loss of the B1(c) floor space contrary to policy 41 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2018). Ms Joslyn (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Resolved (3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to refuse the application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report (amended above), and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
||||||||||
18/1353/FUL - Kingsway Clinic, Carlton Way PDF 122 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for the conversion of former NHS Clinic into 4no. flats. Councillor Green
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to improve the boundary wall
visual impact through a landscape condition. The Senior Planner suggested
amending the boundary condition to include planting. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved (by 6 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 and additional boundary treatment condition. 7. Prior to the occupation of the units,
details of a boundary treatment for the flat adjacent to Carlton Way shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
boundary treatment should provide some defensible space for this occupier. The
boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details
prior to the first occupation of the development (or other timetable agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority) and retained as approved thereafter. Reason: To ensure an appropriate boundary
treatment is implemented in the interests of visual amenity and privacy
(Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 57 and 59). |
||||||||||
18/0217/FUL - 82 Regent Street PDF 119 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for change of use from Class A2 to Nail
Treatment/Beauty Treatment Salon, sui generis. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved (by 6 votes to 0) 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. |
||||||||||
18/1974/S73 - The Jenny Wren, 80 Campkin Road PDF 143 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for Section 73 application. The application sought approval for to vary condition 2 of permission 17/0927/FUL (New building comprising
of a Public House at ground floor with nine residential units on the upper
floors(two 1xbed units & seven studio units) along with car and cycle
parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of the existing
buildings) as follows:- 1) omission of the basement; relocation of bin and bike
store to external structure and relocation of cellar from basement to former
bin/bike store and2) increase in building height by 300mm. Councillor Price (King's Hedges Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application: i.
The application was
considered/approved under the previous Local Plan. ii.
If the application came before
committee now it would not meet Local Plan standards. iii.
There was no reference to Policy
76 in the Officer’s report, specifically ‘cellerage’.
Requested Policy 76 be applied to protect the pub. iv.
Residents were concerned that the
pub was incrementally being changed into housing. They were concerned over the
loss of pubs in the city. v.
Requested the application be
deferred. vi.
If the application were approved,
a condition would be needed to require the pub to be open before residences
were occupied. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 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. |
||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for discussion Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council
commissioned consultants Odournet to undertake an
Odour Impact Assessment, in order to assess the level and risk of odour impact posed
by Cambridge Water Recycling Centre (CWRC) to both inform the North East
Cambridge Area Action Plan and aid consideration of development proposals. That
assessment had been completed. To accompany the study, a technical note had been prepared jointly with
Environmental Health to set out how officers intend to interpret the results of
the Odournet Assessment. Members of the three Committees (Joint
Development Control Committee – Cambridge Fringes, Cambridge City Planning
Committee and South Cambridgeshire DC Planning Committee) were asked to note
both reports. Discussions The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Policy Officer and the Urban Extensions Project Manager. Councillor Blencowe said the report had been presented to the Joint
Development Control Committee. If land owners wanted to develop their sites
before the Area Action Plan was approved, or the Water Recycling Centre moved,
the Officer’s report set out assessment criteria for applications to be
measured against. The Urban Extensions Project Manager said an agent
representing (affected) land owners had submitted a letter objecting to the
report on the morning of committee. Officers would respond to this. The Committee: The
Committee unanimously resolved to
note the findings of the ‘Odour Impact Assessment for Cambridge Water Recycling
Centre (2018) (appendix A), and the Technical Note on interpretation of ‘Odour
Impact Assessment for Cambridge Water Recycling Centre’ (October 2018)
(Appendix B), for the purposes of considering planning applications in the
vicinity. |