Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2020 were deferred to the next meeting as minor changes were required to be made.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the redevelopment of land at rear of 1 Regent Street, and works to Furness Lodge, Janus House and Camden Court for the provision of student accommodation, a student bar, lecture and education facilities and associated landscaping and enabling works.

The Planning Officer asked the Committee to note the additional conditions recommended for inclusion in the planning permission (if Members were minded to grant planning permission) which are contained in the Amendment Sheet.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the following:

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Had no view either way on the principle of the development although had concerns regarding cycle access which needed a s106 obligation.

    ii.         The cycle access as proposed would result in illegal cycling. The developer should be required to fund a contraflow on the street.

   iii.         To leave the site and go into town the developer was suggesting, cyclists would turn out of the development in the opposite direction, move on to a pavement which doesn’t have a dropped curb, negotiate bollards, go round Hobbs Pavillion, cycle past a busy route past the hotel, wait at the traffic light by Pizza Hut, turn right and then head into town.

  iv.         What would happen in practice was that students would take the most direct cycling route, which was 1/3^rd of the length, had no obstructions or mixing with pedestrians. This would potentially be dangerous if vehicles did not expect cyclists.

    v.         The developer should be required to provide a contraflow lane and this should be secured through the s106 Agreement.

  vi.         Around Cambridge some one-way streets have been made 2 way for cyclists. This was one of the few remaining anomalies and now was an opportunity to sort this one out.

 vii.         Referred to a contraflow system which has been agreed with the County Council for a hotel development on Harvest Way.

viii.         The street was wide enough for 3 cars and was therefore wide enough for a contraflow lane.

  ix.         The Highways Officer hadn’t responded to his objection and had responded to a cycling section further away from the proposed development.

Fiona Reynolds (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) 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 on the Amendment Sheet; and

    ii.         delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, to include further conditions and amendments to recommended conditions as follows:

a.    amend condition 15 so that ducting infrastructure is included to future proof the car park;

b.    revise condition 26 specifically making reference to BS6187;

c.    an additional boundary treatment condition or by specific reference to the boundary wall in Condition 21 Hard and Soft Landscaping;

d.    amend the green roof condition to include maintenance in perpetuity

and

   iii.         delegated authority to officers to include informatives in respect of:

a.    sprinklers in the basement

b.    boundary wall treatment to set out how the boundary wall will be amended to break up the visual appearance of the development.

Item withdrawn from today’s Planning Committee agenda and will be put to the new Joint Development Control Committee in August 2020 for determination.

Item withdrawn from today’s Planning Committee agenda and will be put to the next Planning Committee in August 2020 after the 19/1756/FUL Meadows application has been considered and determined by the new Joint Development Control Committee.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to remove Condition 5 of C/02/0136/RM (Demolition of existing buildings and erection of non- food retail units and garden centre, Drive thru restaurant with associated servicing, Car Parking, Landscaping, new access and relocation of existing amenity car park (reserved matters - to original application C/99/1121/OP)) - removal of bollard.

The Principal Planner referred to the Amendment Sheet which requested that authority be delegated to officers to submit a Statement of Case to the Planning Inspectorate outlining the recommended position of the City Council on the application following the Applicant’s appeal against the non-determination of the application.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign:

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         Objected to the application based on road safety concerns and the conflict with policies in the Cambridge Local Plan (CLP).

    ii.         The Applicant’s goal was to remove a safety measure which would create a rat run between Coldham’s Lane and Newmarket Road, which would create conflict between those who were walking and cycling to use the shops.

   iii.         The image of the bollard which members had been shown did not reflect the current physical position on site.

  iv.         Policy 80c of the Cambridge Local Plan  states that developments with road access, must restrict through access to general motor traffic where appropriate, give high priority to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists including their safety and discourage inappropriate car based links within the network. The access road in front of the retail park is precisely the place where there should not be through access for general motor traffic.

    v.         The Applicant admitted they measured 117 motor vehicles rat-running through the site over a few hours one morning in December. The issue would only get worse when there are tail backs on Newmarket Road or Coldham’s Lane or when the cut through gets added to GPS navigation databases.

  vi.         Speed surveys in February, indicated the majority of drivers exceeded the posted speed limit by a considerable margin.

 vii.         The original rationale for the condition preventing through traffic had not changed and there was no basis for its removal.

viii.         The retail park private road should not be used as a relief road as referred to in the officer’s report, it would put the public’s safety at risk.

  ix.         Asked the Committee to reject the application under Cambridge Local Plan policy 80, asked to see immediate works ordered to reinstate the bollard and that planning enforcement officers were asked to assess costs against the Applicant for the previous non-compliance with the planning condition.

A photograph of the current physical site layout was provided by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign representative to the Principal Planner which he shared with the Committee.

The Delivery Manager advised the Committee:

        i.           That they needed to consider the planning merits of the application rather than seek to punish the Applicant. 

      ii.           The Council’s view would be put to the Planning Inspectorate in its Statement of Case as the Applicant had appealed against the non-determination of the Application. Therefore, the decision on the Application will be taken by the Planning Inspectorate, not the City Council today.

    iii.           There was no evidence to support going against the Officer’s recommendation on highway safety concerns.

The Committee:

A vote on the Officer’s recommendation to express the Council’s approval of the Application to the Planning Inspectorate was lost by 2 votes in favour to 6 against.

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1 and 1 abstention) minded to refuse the Application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reason:

The site forms a private car park for the use of customers visiting the retail units within the Cambridge Retail Park. The removal of the bollard encourages rat-running through the site between Coldham’s Lane and Newmarket Road which are two busy roads. This will introduce increased conflict between pedestrian and cycle users of the car park and motor vehicles using the route as a rat-run which will potentially compromise public safety, endangering pedestrians and cyclists, increasing vehicular speeds within the car park and failing to promote sustainable transport modes, cycling and walking. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies 56, 80 and 81 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 110 of the NPPF 2019.    

Item withdrawn from agenda to allow a consultation to be carried out correctly.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a new 3-bedroom 2.5 storey dwelling and associated works at 16 Moore Close.

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·       Resident of 15 Moore Close.

·       Resident of 17 Moore Close

The representations covered the following concerns:

      i.          View from property would be of a new house tacked onto 16 Moore Close.

     ii.          Overlooking.

   iii.          Increase in the number of bins outside Objector’s doorstep.

   iv.          Parking and access:

a.    Extra cars and commuting as a result of the development.

b.    Parked vehicles may block access for emergency vehicles.

    v.          Lack of public transport to mitigate the above.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation as follows:

      i.          A new condition requiring compliance with M42 accessible homes.

     ii.          Amend Condition 10 to maintain replacement trees for five years.

   iii.          Amend Condition 11 to provide access holes for hedgehogs in boundary fencing.

The amendments were carried unanimously.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation seeking to explore a potential amendment to the front footpath layout in conjunction with the Applicant, [to consult if necessary,] with delegated authority for Officers to make the final decision on whether or not to amend the condition.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) 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

     ii.          delegated authority to officers, to include the following further conditions and amendments to the recommended conditions:

a.    A new condition requiring compliance with M4(2) accessible homes.

b.    Amending Condition 10 to maintain replacement trees for five years.

c.    Amending Condition 11 to provide access holes for hedgehogs in boundary fencing; and

   iii.          Officers to explore the potential for amendment to the front footpath layout with the Applicant, to consult if necessary and with authority delegated to Officers on whether or not to amend the condition.

Councillor McQueen left the meeting at this point for another engagement. She did not take part in the discussion or decision making for any items on the agenda from this point (inclusive) forward.

The Committee received an application for temporary change of use as a construction compound for 9 months which would consist of the following: storage of materials, parking for 10-15 vehicles, welfare block (hot water and toilet facility), storage of skips.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for temporary 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.

The Committee received an application to grant consent for felling and pruning as below, subject to replacement planting to mitigate canopy loss.

      i.          TG1: Limes - Remove T1 to T5 to near ground level.

     ii.          TG2: Limes - Re-pollard T6 to T10 at past points and retain on triennial re-pollard cycle.

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requiring that vegetation be planted to replace any trees that die.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to grant consent for felling and pruning as proposed, subject to replacement planting to mitigate canopy loss, with an informative concerning a desire for replacement planting be added to replace any trees that die.

The Committee received an application to grant consent for felling and pruning as below, subject to replacement planting.

      i.          TG1: Limes - Remove T5 to T7 to near ground level.

     ii.          TG2: Limes - Re-pollard at past points and retain on triennial repollard cycle.

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requiring that some vegetation be planted to replace any trees that die.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to grant consent for felling and pruning as proposed, subject to replacement planting, with an informative concerning a desire for replacement planting be added to replace any trees that die.