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 Councillor McQueen. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Minutes To follow Minutes: No minutes were presented to committee for approval. |
||||||||||
20/01972/OUT - GB1 Netherhall Farm, Worts Causeway Minutes: The Committee
received an outline application (all matters reserved except for means of
access) for the erection of up to 200 residential dwellings, with associated infrastructure
works, including access (vehicular, pedestrian and cycle), drainage, public
open space, and landscape. The Principal Planner referred to details on the amendment
sheet as part of their officer presentation. The Principal Planner updated her report to recommend removing Condition
1. The Committee received a number of representations in objection to the
application: Representation from a Camcycle representative: i.
This application was completely
unacceptable as it lacked basic connectivity for walking and cycling to and
from schools and community amenities. This would badly affect not only this
generation but future ones too. ii.
The site is only 300 metres away
from the Netherhall School open space, but schoolchildren will have to trek a
very long and circuitous route to get there: almost 2 kilometres. Distance was
the single biggest factor in people's choice of transport mode. The long routes
were also dependent on a narrow and decrepit cut-through that was unsuitable
for its existing use, much less hundreds of additional families. It was likely
that many new residents would turn to driving instead of walking or cycling to
everyday destinations. iii.
Policy 80 states that developments
should be 'conveniently linked with the surrounding walking and cycling
networks' Policy 81 states that developers were required to make investments to
encourage the use of sustainable transport, including infrastructure. iv.
Paragraphs 3.1.3 and 3.5.1 of LTN
1/20 state that there should be a 'densely spaced cycle network' with '250m -
400m' between routes 'so that all people can easily travel by cycle for trips
within and between neighbourhoods'. There was over 1 kilometre of site
perimeter with no route and even worse it lacked a cycle route on the strongest
desire line. v.
Establishing a direct walking and
cycling link from the development to Almoners' Avenue and/or Beaumont Road is
the lynchpin of this application. The existing estate was specifically designed
for expansion at these points. A weak planning condition that allows the
applicants to say 'they tried and gave up' is an abdication of the city's
responsibility to its future residents. vi.
The lack of basic connectivity was
a strong reason to reject this application under policies 80, 81 and LTN 1/20.
Asked the committee to require the applicants to secure at least one more
walking and cycling land in the direction of schools and community facilities. Local resident
representation: i.
The amenities at Wulfstan Way are
identified as a neighbourhood centre in Appendix C to the adopted 2018
Cambridge Local Plan. ii.
The vital role and significance of
neighbourhood centres in the Local Plan is recognised in Policy 72, the purpose
of which is “Ensuring that the district, local and neighbourhood centres remain
healthy with a suitable mix of uses and few vacancies.” iii.
Specific references include the: a.
Paragraph 2.65 “In
particular, the smaller local and neighbourhood centres need to be protected, as they perform an important function in
providing for day-to-day needs.” b.
Paragraph 8.7 “Local
and neighbourhood centres are particularly valuable in providing for everyday
needs and need to be protected and enhanced. This network of centres is
important in providing shops and facilities that can be accessed by foot and
bicycle rather than having to travel by car.” iv.
As noted by other objectors to
this application, the failure to include convenient and direct walking and
cycling access between GB1 and Wulfstan Way severs the Netherhall Farm
development from local amenities at the Wulfstan Way neighbourhood centre. This
deficit undermines both the principle of prioritising sustainable transport
(Policy 80 and 81) and the
principle of ensuring the health of the existing neighbourhood centre (Policy
72). It is therefore incumbent on councillors to reject the application until
appropriate connectivity to support these Policies is provided. Local resident
representation:
i.
Representation related to the
suitability of the proposed design of the access to Netherhall farm, which has
been identified as the means of emergency access on the illustrative
masterplan.
ii.
The means of access for this
application was not a reserved matter. At present the submitted arrangement
shows no widening of the junction with Worts Causeway and no suitable passing
provision at an appropriate and usable location for the existing users. iii.
The arrangement cannot serve the
existing users of the access and emergency vehicles. Until a suitable and safe
design access has been secured the application should not be approved with
access not being a reserved matter. Ask that this matter is looked into before
any approvals being issued. Local resident
representation i.
The current plans posed a security
risk, as well as an invasion of their privacy. (Showed plans on screen to
detail privacy concerns) ii.
No additional privacy measures
were proposed by the developers. Expected to have the same privacy protecting
measures as the Northern Front. iii.
Referred to 2.21 of the main
project plan, showed fencing of at least 1.8m high plus trees of at least 5m
tall. Expected this around the whole of their property. It was inconsistent to
grant one set of households to the northern front ‘additional security and
privacy’ but not them. iv.
The Planning Officer had noted
their concerns in the planning report but stated that it should be noted that
the development was making public spaces around their property. This made their
concerns greater and there would be zero accountability to who could access
these grounds, which was to the rear of their house. v.
Building heights around the
development would be 11.5m or 12m high. The visual assessment stated that 3
storey houses were prevalent in the area. Asked the developer to provide
evidence how this was within the local character of the area. vi.
The nearest bus stop was outside
the maximum recommended by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport.
The Developers misrepresented advice from the CHID. The development was
therefore not sustainable development from a public standpoint. vii.
All previous objections, which
have gone unanswered, still stand. Local resident
representation
i.
Issue of
the status of Netherhall Farm and the barns as a Building of Local Interest
(BLI). Referred to Policy 62 and a. appearance, the BLI would be hidden by the
proposed development b. setting within agricultural heritage. ii.
Previous
applications submitted by the speaker had been declined because they had not
been consistent with BLI. It was inconsistent to have a BLI be surrounded by a
housing estate. Asked if the development
was approved that the BLI status was removed from Netherhall Farm and the
barns.
iii.
Expressed
concerns regarding loss of privacy. The
20m buffer did not extend to their property. There was only a 6-7m buffer
between edge of their garden and the proposed development. Asked that the 20m buffer proposed by the
developer was consistently applied to all existing properties.
iv.
The access
plan was unworkable. The developer proposed using the track leading to their
property for emergency access. The developer had proposed a passing place but
this was unworkable due to right of way issues. Requested condition regarding
rights of way between the developer and all residents if the application was
approved.
v.
Mown
pathway between site and western area through country wildlife site.
vi.
Tree on
their land had been omitted from the tree retention plan. vii.
Road
widening on Worts Causeway will stop the road having the rural character it
currently had. Road should be retained at current width as it provided a speed
retention. viii.
Queried
cycleway way over a footway at the south side of Worts Causeway.
ix.
Summarised
principal objections: a. CEG design inappropriate adjacent to Building of
Local Interest b. Loss of privacy having buildings so close to
their property c. CEG’s access proposal is unworkable as no legal
means for vehicles to pass d. Tree retention plan e. Mown pathway past bedroom windows f. Cycleway over footpath Sophie Pryor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Councillor McGerty (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
Noted the applicant’s willingness
to work with the community and local councillors. ii.
Noted the application’s 40%
affordable housing contribution, which would make housing available to those
who could demonstrate they had family locally. iii.
Noted high house prices in Queen
Edith’s Ward. iv.
GB1 would provide 32 homes for
people who work nearby and 24 affordable homes for people with family in the
area, in addition to 24 affordable homes more generally available. v.
Application made positive
contribution to biodiversity. vi.
Referred to the recently published
Sustainability SPD. vii.
Noted that there was still no
undertaking to provide a bus service to the area. Referred to section 8.107 of
the officer’s report which stated that people would walk to the existing bus
stops on Babraham Road. Thought people would not do this and would drive into
town instead. Stated that there should be a new bus stop on Worts Causeway at
the south western site entrance point. This could serve developments GB1 and
GB2 equally. Asked for an update on bus providers / County Council. viii.
Expressed concerns regarding the
size of buildings going up close to residents’ homes. ix.
Noted that the 3 storey blocks had
been moved into the centre of the development. x.
Queried the proposal to widen the
road. xi.
Queried access to the local
wildlife site. xii.
Asked for more information
regarding the management plan for protected habitat. xiii.
Expressed concerns that the
pavement could become and overflow car park. xiv.
If the development went ahead
asked the officer to explain why Netherhall Farm and associated buildings
should retain their status of BLI. xv.
Requested fencing around 31 Worts
Causeway. xvi.
Expressed disappointment there was
no walking and/ or cycling link into the Queen Edith’s community. Following Councillor Tunnacliffe's concern over allotments
and several councillors being unsure that sufficient efforts were taken by
applicants to secure north access cut through route, the Principal Planner
updated her report with the following recommendations: i.
Landscape and ecological
management plan could be secured through the s106 Agreement (would need to
include reference to allotments).
ii.
Re-instate Condition
35. Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
for an informative that the Applicant should negotiate a northern access cut
though route for houses suggesting liaison with SusTrans who did something
similar for the Chisholm Trail. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation: i.
Changing the foul water
informative to a condition. ii.
Condition 11 should include reference to the
Cambridge Water Management Plan regarding 2020-2025 water resources.
iii.
To increase the percentages in Condition 28 to
adapt for current flooding conditions. These amendments were carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the
application for outline planning
permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the prior completion of an
Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated
authority granted to Officers to negotiate, secure and complete such an Agreement on terms considered appropriate and necessary;
ii.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet;
iii.
removal of Condition 1;
iv.
landscape
and ecological management secured
through the s106 Agreement (to include reference to allotments;
v.
re-instatement of Condition 35;
vi.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following
additional/amended conditions: a. changing
the foul water informative to a condition; b. condition 11 to include reference to the
Cambridge Water Management Plan regarding 2020-2025 water resources; c.
increase the percentages in Condition 28 (in
consultation with Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Drainage
Engineer); and d.
an informative that the Applicant
should negotiate a northern access cut though route for houses. Suggested
liaising with SusTrans who did something similar for the Chisholm Trail. |
||||||||||
20/03501/FUL - Land at Barnes Close Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. This is a Regulation 3
under the Town and County General Regulations 1992 (as amended). The application
sought approval for demolition of existing garages and hardstanding and the
construction of 6 No. modular homes. The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to updated condition
wording and written statements by Objectors on the Amendment Sheet. The
Committee adjourned for 10 minutes to ensure all Members had read the additional
details. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Barnes Close: i.
The development was not a good
living space: a.
loss of floor area; b.
does not meet accessibility
standards; c.
lack of private amenity space. ii.
Parking pressure from the
application would lead to more on-street parking. iii.
The colour of the pods would harm
the character of the area. iv.
The pods would harm the privacy of
nearby neighbours. v.
Did not object to the principle of
housing pods, but they should be located on other site(s). Mr Lowings (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that electric vehicle charging point should be
put in the car club parking space. 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’s report and the Amendment Sheet, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Officer including the amendment to the condition regarding the electric vehicle charging point and its location. Committee also delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions
in consultation with the Chair and Spokes. |
||||||||||
19/1221/FUL - Land r/o 29-31 Peverel Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on the site, which has
been assembled from the severed gardens
of numbers 29 & 31 Peverel Road with boundary fencing. The Planner
referred to a statement from Objectors on the Amendment Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Peverel Road: i.
Three out of the thirteen material
planning considerations had still not been met. ii.
Regarding harm to wildlife,
section 9.22 of the Officer’s report stated
that gaps will be left in the boundary fencing for hedgehogs, with no
consideration made to the low chance of survival for the many nesting deep
among the log-piles in the portion of the site that has been untouched for over
a decade. Even though such instances were not strictly protected by the
Conservation of Habitats Act, a survey is required to assess how many females
are present and to ensure they are given the optimal chance of surviving having
to establish new nests after construction commences, particularly if this
occurs during the crucial post-hibernation months when hoglets are present. iii.
One element of the design and
layout still failed to meet planning considerations, namely how far the first
floor protrudes deep beyond the line of neighbouring homes. This was evident as
extensions with first floors extending out this far were not permitted along
the very same housing row due to the unreasonable overshadowing caused. It’s
clear that in an area of bright concrete terraced and semi-detached houses, a
detached brick dwelling with a first floor set back this prominently into
neighbouring gardens does not relate appropriately to the buildings and spaces
surrounding it. Though I appreciate that efforts have been made to adequately
address this issue in the past year or so, with further more open discussions
with residents, the moving of this first floor back towards the existing row of
houses can be more than offset by increasing the ground floor area, jointly
making better use of the land available and increasing the principle of
development. Mr Taylor (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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
||||||||||
20/02791/FUL - 196 Green End Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of no. 196 and No. 198 Green End Road and construction
of 7no. Apartments (5no. 2bed, 1 x 3bed and 1 x 1bed) and commercial space. The Planner updated her report by referring to details on the amendment
sheet: i.
Addition of further conditions: Condition 25, 26
and 27.
ii.
Referred to a statement from an Objector. Councillor Bird (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Safety concerns about road junction: a.
Impact of extra traffic from the shop. b.
Lack of parking for shop visitors.
ii.
There were twenty mature trees and wildlife in the green
space. Expressed concern only two to
three trees would be left with less wildlife due to replacement hard standing
which could also impact on water drainage.
iii.
Shop could overlook nearby nursery and lead to lack
of privacy.
iv.
Questioned if there was: a.
A fire risk from just one entry/exit point. b.
An appropriate level of parking.
v.
Expressed concern about: a.
Development out of character with the area. b.
Loss of light. c.
Overlooking of neighbours. d.
Traffic noise. e.
Overshadowing. f.
Application goes over building line. g.
Overbearing. h.
Impact on local drainage system. i.
Overdevelopment of site. j.
Application too close to pavement, people step out of
shop straight onto pavement, causing possible conflict between shoppers and
pedestrians. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation that: i.
The position of letterboxes
should be policy compliant. ii.
Replacement trees should be
maintained for 5 years after planting up. 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, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and amendment sheet;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional
conditions: a. To
ensure the position of letterboxes would be policy compliant. b. Any
replacement trees should be maintained for 5 years. |
||||||||||
20/03020/FUL - 184 Thoday Street Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval to erect a two-storey side and rear extension, single storey rear
extension and roof extension and to subdivide the existing dwelling into 4
separate flats with private and shared amenity space. The Planner updated his report by referring to details on the amendment
sheet: i.
Amendment to Paragraph 8.22.
ii.
Referred to a statement from the Applicant. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Thoday Street: i.
Was not against development and
understand the need for more housing. ii.
Supported the redevelopment of the
former Ridgeon’s site and applaud the Council that much of it will be
affordable. iii.
The proposed development was the
wrong one in the wrong place. iv.
Wanted to put on record the
Objector’s view the Applicant has gone about this application in an underhand
way: a.
Alleged the Applicant said he
intended to live in the property with his partner. b.
The Applicant then quickly
installed tenants who subjected those in the adjoining property to anti-social
behaviour. v.
Objector’s specific objections to
this application include: a.
Overdevelopment – almost all
properties in the immediate vicinity are still family homes or single unit
HMOs. b.
Out of scale and character with
neighbouring buildings – application is much larger than those buildings in
immediate vicinity. c.
Increase in noise and waste particularly
to those living in the properties adjacent and adjoining. Four dwellings = 12
waste bins. d.
Intensification of use and
increased disturbance from subdivision caused by more movements from property
and deliveries to it etc. e.
Increased overlooking of adjacent
properties and those on Fairfax Rd and Ross Street caused by the increased
scale & third storey. f.
Loss of distinction between public
space at front and private space at rear impacting negatively upon the privacy
of residents g.
Change in character from a family
orientated area undermining existing sense of community amongst residents. h.
Lack of car parking provision
which is already limited in area – a view supported by County Highways and
Officers i.
Also increases pressure to
introduce residents parking scheme. j.
Amenity space at the rear is
poorly related to the flats it serves which will not encourage those who own to
it to look after it. k.
Insufficient cycle parking and bin
stores, this may result in them being stored at front of property which is
detrimental to appearance and amenity. l.
Proposed design will result in
further blocking of light to side bedroom window at 182 Thoday Street. m.
Structurally flats 3 and 4 do not
conform to roof heights for residential space standards. n.
Internal stairs also do not comply
with Building Regulations. vi.
Closing Comments a.
Para. 8.22 referenced bus stops on
Milton Rd and Kings Hedges Rd rather than Mill Rd. b.
There was no acknowledgement that there
could be an impact upon residential amenity which Councillors should consider. c.
Officers also recognise the
ceiling heights in flats 3 and 4 do not meet the height standards set out in
the Council’s own policy. d.
Overall this application does not
suggest that the proposed development is fit for purpose for the future. e.
It is instead a speculative
attempt to maximise profit to the detriment of existing residents. Mr Edwards
(Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to reject the
Officer recommendation to approve the application. Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation for the following reason: The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in extensions of a scale and massing which would be out of keeping with the existing building and being overly prominent and bulky in the street and a poor quality provision of internal space due to restricted head heights and no private outdoor space for flat 4, resulting in a cramped form of development for future occupants that would result in a poor standard of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 50, 53, 55, 56 and 58. |
||||||||||
18/1321/OUT - 72-74 St Philips Road Minutes: Item deferred to enable the Applicant time to amend the scheme to address some of the issues raised in the Officer’s report in relation to the new Cambridge Local Plan 2018. |
||||||||||
6pm Guillotine Minutes: The Committee unanimously resolved to continue past 6pm and not adjourn the meeting. |
||||||||||
20/02954/FUL - 8 Kings Hedges Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of four dwellings,
including a dropped kerb and associated infrastructure following the demolition
of the existing buildings on site. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Kings Hedges Road: i.
The development would exacerbate
existing traffic and parking issues. ii.
The application was positioned
right up against the Objector’s boundary line. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to
require: i.
An air source heat pumps informative. ii.
A condition requiring
details to be submitted regarding cycle parking provision. These amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include an informative that the fire service need access to the rear of the
property. 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional
condition: a. condition
requiring details to be submitted regarding cycle parking provision;
iii.
informatives
included on the planning permission in respect of: a. air
source heat pumps informative; b. the
fire service need access to the rear of the property. |
||||||||||
19/1670/FUL - 60 Wycliffe Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for single storey rear extension and conversion from 3
bedroomed house to two x one-bedroom flats. Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
to include an informative that the land shown green on the plan is City Council owned land, not part of the
site, and should be replanted with grass to stop people parking on it. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer including an informative brining to the fore that the green area adjoining the site was Council owned land, not part of the site, and should be replanted with grass to stop people parking on it. |
||||||||||
20/05247/HFUL - 63 Gilbert Road Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the installation of external wall insulation installed on
the ground floor side elevation and the first-floor side and rear elevations. Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that the Chair and Spokes should be consulted if anyone lodges an objection to
the application between the date of this meeting and the end of the
statutory consultation period. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer
including the amendment that the Chair and Spokes be consulted in the event of
any objections being lodged between the date of this meeting and the end of the
consultation period. |