Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors McQueen and Smart. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 10 September were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||||||||
20/03373/S73 - Park Street Car Park PDF 213 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (Approved Plans) of
planning permission reference number 19/1159/FUL (demolition of existing
multi-storey car park and erection of an aparthotel (Use Class C1) alongside an
underground public car park, public cycle store and associated works). The
proposal sought to make the following changes: Internal layout
alterations, two additional aparthotel rooms at ground floor level, external
elevational alterations, additional rooftop plant to facilitate the removal of
all gas use from the scheme, rooftop screening and balustrade alterations, and
other associated alterations. The Principal Planner referred to details on the amendment
sheet. Mr Heselton (Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. Councillor Porrer (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Welcomed removal of gas from the scheme and
understood additional planting on the roof was related to this.
ii.
Regretted as Ward Councillor that the opportunity wasn’t taken to look at toilet provision, including disabled
access.
iii.
As a current mobile phone mast was to be removed
from the roof, would like to note concern around where the mast would be
reinstated if new plant works no longer allowed it to be located on the roof.
Especially as a potential replacement location[s] could be a green space such
as Jesus Green. Councillor Porrer withdrew
from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or
decision making. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to grant the
Section 73 application in accordance
with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s
report, subject to the planning conditions recommended by the officer in the
report and amendment sheet. |
|||||||||||||||||||
19/1214/FUL - 56-58 Chesterton Road PDF 185 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for amendments to planning permission reference 17/2157/FUL for
redevelopment of site to provide 2no. ground floor commercial units comprising
Use Class A1 (shop), A2 (financial and professional) - in the alternative, with
8no. apartments, cycle parking and associated infrastructure - to allow A4 use
(drinking establishments) at ground floor and basement with associated B2 use
(microbrewery). Mr Green (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Tunnacliffe
withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the
discussion or decision making. Resolved
(by 5 votes to 0) 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||
20/0034/FUL - Jesus Green Moorings, Thompsons Lane PDF 223 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for extension of the existing pontoon. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from the Company Secretary
for Beaufort Place. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The punting station was granted by
St John’s College to the county council as a public punting station and this
application would prevent the location being used as a community facility,
cementing its use as a commercial centre. ii.
The punting operation of 28 punts
continues through 365 days per year, from early morning to late at night, up to
2am in summer months. The punting companies actively encouraged the use of
punts for stag parties and similar uses, drunken behaviour linked to this had a
dramatic detrimental effect on the peace and enjoyment of residents. iii.
There had been a lack of
consideration and consultation with the residents of Beaufort Place over a
change of use from what was intended to be a small public punting station to a
commercial centre similar to a nightclub or hospitality event. Ms Wynne from Rutherford’s Punting Company (Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Councillor Thornburrow withdrew from the meeting
during this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making. Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 1 abstention)
to
reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application. Members proposed draft ‘minded to’ reasons
for refusal which were re-worded by Officers into a format for the minutes.
Members resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to accept both reasons for ‘minded
to’ refusal and the wording therein. Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
By virtue of the scale of the proposed extension to
the pontoon, the scissor lift and associated works, the development would
increase the presence and urbanise the appearance of the existing facility. In
doing so, it would result in less than substantial harm to the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings,
and would also harm the special landscape qualities of the River Cam and Protected
Open Space. Whilst the works are intended to improve accessibility to this
punting operation and improve loading and unloading arrangements, these
benefits are considered to be predominantly confined to users of the punt
operation and to be of limited wider public benefit. As such, they do not
outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the heritage assets, as
set out in Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 7, 55, 61, 65 and 67
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
ii.
The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the
proposed development would not give rise to an intensification in the use of
the pontoon and associated pedestrian activity in this area of Jesus Green,
which already suffers from pedestrian congestion. As such, the proposal may
impede the free flow of pedestrian movement, contrary to Policies 56, 65 and 80
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018, and to Paragraph 110 of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2019. |
|||||||||||||||||||
20/01738/FUL - Land at Lilac Court PDF 189 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for demolition of existing garages and redevelopment to provide
eight residential dwellings (Use Class C3) along with car and cycle parking and
associated infrastructure and landscaping. The Senior Planner referred to details on the amendment
sheet. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. His written statement was read by the Committee
Manager. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from residents of Hinton Avenue, Courtland Avenue, and Lilac Court. The representation covered the following issues: i.
There was a dangerous potential
for vehicle strike due to tight constraints of the development, also impacting
the current on-street vehicle parking and the safety of residents exiting
properties. ii.
A lack of footpaths outside
proposed houses would lead to a requirement for dropped kerbs for
wheelchair/buggy use, displacing required parking. A reduction in the southern
turning circle would lead to increased danger from larger vehicles. iii.
New dwellings would overlook and
intrude on surrounding residents, including windows and balconies facing
habitable rooms. Additionally several of
the new dwellings included no proper amenity space. iv.
Tree officers did not support the
application as several trees would have to be felled. v.
The Applicant’s claim that the
garages were not in use and a site of antisocial behaviour were inaccurate. Also,
the designated site was not available for development as several residents have
access rights across it to access their freehold and leasehold garages. Councillor Herbert (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Was pleased this had come to committee as there had
been two applications, one of which was withdrawn before a decision notice
could be issued.
ii.
Took issue with the accuracy of details previously
submitted by the Applicant and stated inaccurate material had been provided
previously regarding tree surveys and computer-generated images.
iii.
The 11m width of the designated area was too small
for this type of development and the close proximity to current properties
which had large habitable room windows would lead to new properties requiring
significant measures to obscure their views. This would impact on existing
residents’ privacy and amenity. iv.
Asked the committee to consider/review text in the
existing reasons for refusal, but there were several strong reasons included,
so please support the officer recommendation to refuse. The application would
exacerbate existing issues in the area such as traffic and refuse (waste)
collection lorry manoeuvrability in the turning head. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:
i.
Reason for refusal 5 should include a note that
there would be a net loss of biodiversity from the development.
ii.
The louvred windows in bedrooms would mean a lack
of appropriate amenity and light. Councillor Thornburrow
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation. The description within the reason for refusal 6 should make mention that
the development is of eight 3 bedroom houses, not two 3 bedroom houses and six
2 bedroom houses, which strengthened the issues of inadequate cycle storage and
not meeting M4(2) accessible homes standards. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 2) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with
the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report and
amendment sheet, including the amendment to: i.
Reason for Refusal 5, to
include that the proposal will result in a net loss of biodiversity. ii.
Reason for Refusal 6, to
reword to include that the proposal failed to provide adequate levels of cycle
parking provision for the dwellings proposed. iii.
Draft an additional reason for refusal, relating to
poor amenity for future occupants of the dwellings, due to the louvred windows
being the only windows in certain bedrooms. Delegated authority was given to officers, to draft the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Spokes. |
|||||||||||||||||||
20/0050/FUL - 54A Cherry Hinton Road PDF 141 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for change of use from HMO (use class C4), single
storey rear extension and two-storey side extension following demolition of
rear extension. To create 4no. artists studios (use class B1), 2no. communal /
gallery spaces (use class D1) and associated service provision. Retention of
barbers premises (use class A1). Retention of 1no. studio flat as caretaker's accommodation (use class C3). The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Cherry Hinton Road: i.
Would be significantly negatively
impacted by the applicant’s proposed overbearing development. ii.
Was speaking on behalf of herself
and the local Residents’ Association who were very concerned that their
concerns had not been addressed. a. Over development - B1, C3, D1 together
with the current A1 use on the footprint of a Victorian end of terrace house
with a narrow garden was unacceptable. b. Loss of residential space. c. Scale and mass - This was far more than a
typical ‘back of house extension’ as mentioned in ‘Local Character’ in the
'Design and Access Statement’. Although the design was described as one storey
and in keeping with domestic scale it would protrude massively above the
existing wall and fence lines and crosses the 45 degree line from speaker’s 1st
floor back bedroom. d. Loss of amenity – 1.
No
updated shadow statement to show the effect on 52 Cherry Hinton Road. Expressed
concern that speaker’s right to light would be lost on the basis that artists
require a minimum ceiling height of 2.4m for aesthetic purposes. 2.
No
plan to replace the trees already been lost to the barber shop car park, or the
tree that will be lost to future development. e. Parking – The development would
exacerbate existing problems. No parking study has been carried out. Spaces
won’t cater for the number of users. f. Safety – 1. The lane has a 3 ton carrying capacity so
was unsuitable for delivery vehicles. 2. In places there is no footpath and only
space for a small vehicle to navigate. 3. There was no turning head or barriers to
prevent customer access onto private property. 4. No statement about safety of cyclists and
pedestrians using the lane. g. Future use - There were no guarantees
that the buildings will not be used for light industrial use in the future. iii.
Councillor Colin McGerty made the
point on a site visit that there would be a ‘canyon of buildings’ in that
section of the lane if the proposed development behind EACH goes ahead too.
This reflects how under siege residents felt about development on these very
small patches of land. Ms Milligan (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include: i.
An informative to ensure
residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s
parking scheme. ii.
A condition to retain one
accessible car parking space. The amendments were carried
unanimously. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Officer including the amendments to include: i.
An informative to ensure
that residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s
parking scheme. ii.
A condition to retain one
accessible car parking space. |
|||||||||||||||||||
20/03202/FUL - 523 Coldhams Lane PDF 213 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of 6 No. 1-bed dwellings following the demolition
of an existing building. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Fulbourn Old Drift: i.
523 Coldhams Lane had off road
parking with a garden behind it. The application would set a precedent for
garden development. ii.
The application was near the green
space around St Andrew’s Church and could negatively impact on the amenity of
groups who used the green space. It was the only space that could be used for
concerts in the area. iii.
Recent developments in the area
had increased the demand to use the open space around St Andrew’s Church for
community purposes. iv.
The Church could ‘go out of
business’ if it lost its parking spaces and delicate eco-systems. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include: i.
A condition to retain the
green roof in perpetuity. ii.
A condition to retain
new/existing trees. The 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, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
the following additional
conditions, with delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions in
consultation with the Chair and Spokes: a. A condition to retain the green roof in
perpetuity. b. A condition to retain new/existing trees. |