Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: 19/0183/FUL - 3 Saxon Street - withdrawn from agneda
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Lord, McQueen and Page-Croft. Councillor Thornburrow
attended as the Alternate. Councillor Sargeant
left after the consideration of item 19/52/Plan. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June and 3 July 2019 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Application 18/1002/FUL - 211 - 213 Newmarket Road And 2 Godesdone Road PDF 300 KB Minutes: The Committee
adjourned 10:00am until 10:45 whilst Officers and the Chair considered an
allegation of procedural and factual errors regarding the consideration of this
application. The Delivery
Manager said the complaint was made verbally just prior to the committee’s
meeting beginning. As the complaint was not made in writing and delivered
before Committee. The concerns would be addressed in the Officer’s introduction
to the application. The Legal Advisor said the Committee had
sufficient detail and facts in the Officer’s report enabling it to come to a
decision today. A verbal complaint had been made today. Information regarding
the application had been in the public domain for some time so there had been
sufficient time for the complaint to be put in writing prior to this meeting. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application had been reported to the 17 June 2019
Planning Committee with an Officer recommendation of approval. During the
consideration of the application, Members of the Committee raised a number of
concerns about the proposal. Members’
concerns were sufficient for a move to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation. Members therefore resolved in favour of a ‘minded to
refuse’ decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation resulting with the
Adjourned Decision Protocol (ADP) being applied. The Committee gave three reasons on which it
was minded to refuse planning permission and which are set out in the Officer’s
report. The application sought approval for
demolition of existing buildings at 211-213 Newmarket Road and construction of
a hotel (C1 use), with change of use and conversion of 2 Godesdone
Road to C1 use, and provision of associated infrastructure. The Committee received the Principal
Planner’s assessment of the three minded to refuse reasons. The Officer
corrected a typographical error in the planning report: the loading bay was on
the opposite side of the road to the location given in the report and further
towards Number 4. The Chair asked the Committee if they had sufficient information to
consider the application today in light of the verbal complaint, or if they
wished to defer the application to seek further information. The Committee unanimously resolved to consider and determine the application
today. The Committee discussed the following points:
i.
Concerns had not been addressed relative to surface
water and foul water drainage.
ii.
The application would not alleviate traffic
problems in the area. There was an expectation of higher numbers of cars/people
visiting the site if it became a hotel (compared to its current usage).
iii.
Local residents could be disturbed by: a.
Taxis dropping off visitors. b.
Hotel guests smoking and talking outside the hotel
as it had no café/amenity area where guest could congregate.
iv.
Queried if the application was for a super-budget
hotel as costs were similar to ‘normal’ hotels.
v.
Disagreed there was unmet demand for (super budget)
hotels in the city. The Hotel Future Study was out of date. The Principal Planner responded to Councillors:
i.
The Committee were asked to consider the ‘minded to
refuse’ reasons as set out in the Officer’s report. All concerns should have
been raised and discussed at the 17 June Committee so Members could set out
reasons why they were minded to refuse, and confirm which, if any of these were
still relevant. New reasons should not be introduced now. Anglian Water had made a representation, which
focussed on surface water. The Officer: i. Recommended an additional foul water drainage condition in response to the representation.
ii.
There were low visitor numbers to the site when
Coopers traded from the site. The site had an A1 use so a new user could have
higher throughput of visitors (under the existing use).
iii.
The hotel could instruct taxis to drop-off
customers in Newmarket Road to minimise disturbance to neighbours although such
a requirement would be difficult to enforce. There were no Highways Authority
objections to the application.
iv.
The application was described as a super budget
hotel. It was similar in cost to others but had fewer facilities.
v.
The Hotel Future Study stated demand for budget
hotels had been satisfied. However, Officers were aware that circumstances had
changed since the study was commissioned. A business case was also set out in
the Applicant’s report, so there was a need for overnight accommodation. The Committee: Resolved (by 3 votes to 3 – and on Chair’s casting
vote) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the
Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and
subject to (1) the conditions recommended therein; (2) the prior completion of
a Section 106 Agreement securing the planning obligations identified in the
Officer’s report; (3) the additional conditions recommended within the Highway
Authority’s consultation responses; (4) a condition requiring foul water
drainage details. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 18/1058/FUL - 60 Trumpington Road and 2 Nightingale Cottages PDF 222 KB Minutes: Councillors Green and Thornburrow neither
participated nor voted in the determination of this application. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for
demolition of the former Zahza Grill Restaurant and
replacement with 4 terraced dwellings, along with access, parking and
landscaping. First floor rear extension to No.2 Nightingale
Cottages, with new front door and removal of existing lean-to element. The Committee noted the Amendment
Sheet. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from local residents. The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Residents of North Cottages did not object to some
development of the site and had worked with the Developer.
ii.
The disputed boundary of the site remains
unresolved.
iii.
The proposal would be overbearing.
iv.
Massing of building would be out of keeping with
area.
v.
Access for emergency vehicles would be lost.
vi.
Would result in loss of light for neighbours. vii.
Proposal fails Government guidelines on access
arrangements. Rupert Kirby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor
Thornburrow (the Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application as
follows:
i.
Building proposed to be demolished was a
safeguarded Public House and was afforded special protection by policy 76 the
2018 Local Plan.
ii.
Lack of viability of the Public House had not been
demonstrated.
iii.
The view of North Cottages from the Public House
currently enjoyed some screening.
iv.
The proposal would have a negative impact on North
Cottages and in particular No 1.
v.
Dispute over boundary needed to be resolved.
vi.
Existing Hedge should be retained. The Committee: Resolved by 4 votes to 0 (unanimous of those taking
part in the determination of this item) to grant the application for planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0183/FUL - 3 Saxon Street PDF 103 KB Minutes: Withdrawn from the Agenda |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0046/FUL - The Tivoli, 16 Chesterton Road PDF 147 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for alterations and repairs to the building
including reinstatement of frontages and side walls, bricking up of some
openings, replacement windows and fire escape. Creation of second floor element
and enclosed roof terraces to first and second floor. Part change of use of the
existing building to recreational uses. The
Committee noted the Amendment Sheet. Oliver Trezise (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee
raised concerns regarding the visual impact of proposed plan on the roof of the
building. An amendment to condition 13 was agreed regarding the visual impact
of plant located on the roof on visual amenity of local residents. This 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
Officer including the amendment to condition 13 concerning the air conditioning
plant. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0400/FUL - 348 Milton Road PDF 125 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a single
storey dwelling to the rear of 348 Milton Road. The Committee
raised concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles. An informative
regarding mitigation measures was proposed which was carried unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer including an informative relating to fire access. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0707/FUL - 62-64 King Street PDF 120 KB Minutes: The Committee received a retrospective application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for retrospective change of use from A1 to A1 with an
associated A3 or A4 use in the alternative. The Committee
noted the 3 additional conditions proposed by the Environmental Health
Department regarding noise, use of the courtyard and plant, as detailed in the
Amendment Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Concerns regarding noise and anti-social behaviour
in a largely residential area.
ii.
Alcohol consumption and associated problems.
iii.
Evening and late-night noise disturbance.
iv.
Impact on nearby social housing.
v.
Concentration of similar food and drink
establishments in a small area.
vi.
Obstruction of the footpath. vii.
Smoking outside the front of the building. Sam Owens (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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officers including three additional conditions relating to (1) the hours of use
of the courtyard; (2) playing music in the courtyard; and (3) plant noise
insulation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0252/FUL - 342 Mill Road PDF 99 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the replacement of existing
outbuilding to two storey annex to the rear of the garden. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 18/1319/FUL - 24 Elfleda Road PDF 117 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a 2
bedroom bungalow in the rear garden of 24 Elfleda Road. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The Officer’s report was incorrect in suggesting
that loss of light to neighbours would be insignificant.
ii.
The proposal would result in significant loss of
afternoon and early evening light to number 25.
iii.
The proposed roof height would be overbearing to
number 25.
iv.
The existing fence was of a wire construction and
allowed light through. Replacing this with a board fence would result in a
feeling of enclosure.
v.
Treatment of the boundary was unclear. In response to concerns
raised by the Committee, the Officer proposed additional conditions regarding
(1) boundary treatment and (2) hard and soft landscaping. These amendments were 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officers including the addition of conditions regarding (1) boundary treatment
and (2) hard and soft landscaping. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 19/0555/FUL - 84 Ditton Lane PDF 136 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the sub-division of the existing
site to build new one and a half storey 2-bed detached dwelling to the rear,
and bike store. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Local residents do not feel they had the chance to
respond to the application due to very limited advertising of the plans.
ii.
Development would increase parking pressure.
iii.
Building on a blind corner would endanger local
children on their way to school.
iv.
A single storey unit would be more appropriate.
v.
Building could be located further back in the site. Chris Todd (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed a boundary treatment condition regarding low level
planning and landscaping should be added to the Officer’s recommendation, which
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’s report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the Officer and subject to two additional
conditions relating to (1) hard and soft landscape and (2) boundary treatment,
as follows: 14 No development above ground level, other
than demolition, shall commence until full details of both hard and soft
landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed planting
to the front of the property to provide defensible space. The planting adjacent
to the northern elevation shall be kept at a low level to ensure it does not
restrict visibility of the footway. All hard and soft landscape works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The maintenance shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Any trees or plants that,
within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become in the
opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall
be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size
and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives
its written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
and to ensure that suitable hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the
development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 57 and 59) 15. No development above ground level, other than demolition, shall commence
until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of
boundary treatments to be erected. Boundary treatments to adjoining gardens
should include sufficient gaps (150mm X 150mm) to allow access for
hedgehogs. The boundary treatment shall
be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation
or the bringing into use 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). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Report - 18/1712/FUL - 198A Kings Hedges PDF 108 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for extensions to
existing development of flats (including an additional floor) to create three
additional flats and one duplex unit. In response to concerns
raised by the Committee, the Officer proposed additional conditions regarding
(1) boundary treatment and (2) soft landscaping, which were 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
Officer including additional conditions relating to (1) boundary treatment and
(2) soft landscaping. |