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 Lord, McQueen and Thornburrow. Councillors Bird and Page-Croft were present as Alternates. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
20/01901/S73 - 157 Histon Road PDF 115 KB Minutes: The Committee received a S73 application to
vary condition 14 of planning permission C/95/0110 (as amended 19/1047/S73) that
delivery hours shall only take place between 07:00hrs and 22:00hrs Monday to
Saturday and 09:00hrs and 19:00hrs on Sundays and Bank Holidays and to remove
the limitation on the number of articulated vehicles deliveries per day
(Amended description). Mr Scadding (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Payne (Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application: i.
Wished to
impress on the Committee the close proximity of the Aldi loading bay to Nursery
Walk properties. Number 8 Nursery Walk sat directly behind the loading
bay. ii.
Had received over time a number of complaints
from residents about the noise caused by deliveries. iii.
Over the last few months, people really welcomed
the support of the Aldi area manager, who has reminded drivers to use the
silent entry system. This made a huge difference with the current two
deliveries a day, especially while residents were at home during lockdown. The
store had been willing to work with residents and was supportive of their
needs. iv.
The issue with removing the limit of delivery
vehicles was two-fold: a.
It would make use of the silent entry much
harder to enforce across a larger number of vehicles. b.
It was not just the noise of the engines that
caused disturbance, it was also the noises that accompanied unloading. Such as
beeping, doors banging and the unloaders shouting to one another. This
additional disturbance was expected to increase with increased deliveries. The
proposed extension of hours would take this into incredibly anti-social hours
and cause great disturbance. v.
Asked the Committee will consider the residents
of Nursery Walk with empathy and reject this proposal. The Committee: The Committee were
of the opinion more information was necessary before determining the
application, thus it was deferred by 6 votes to 1 so officers could seek
further information regarding: i.
The
view of Environmental Health Officers. ii.
Aldi’s
delivery needs. iii.
Delivery
Plan information. iv.
The
number of lorries expected. v.
Sound
barrier specifications. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1141/FUL - 1 Fitzwilliam Road PDF 224 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing building and
construction of three dwellings. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a resident of Fitzwilliam Road [speaking
on behalf of 21 residents who opposed this proposal]: i.
1 Fitzwilliam is an important
corner of the Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area. Many trees, some with Tree Preservation
Orders [TPOs], and the open gardens contributed to the sense of green space.
The importance of the Conservation Area and its public amenity has increased
since the surrounding developments of Kaleidoscope and Cambridge Assessment. ii.
The rejection of the previous
application [in 2015] was upheld at appeal for two reasons: the loss of amenity for neighbours and the
detrimental impact on the Conservation Area. This should be the starting point
when considering any new application. iii.
Specific concerns: a.
This proposal, though smaller in
scale than the previous one, still had accommodation for up to thirty two
people in three terraced houses. b.
It protruded beyond neighbouring
building lines. c.
Was over-sized relative to the
site and sub-divided this corner plot resulting in tiny gardens dominated by
cycle sheds and bin stores. d.
The design reflected the modern
buildings opposite in Kaleidoscope and neither referenced nor complemented the
neighbouring buildings in the Conservation Area. iv.
The size and configuration
strongly suggested an intention to subdivide into multiple occupancy housing in
the future. Any such move would have a hugely negative impact on the
Conservation Area. v.
On the potential loss of amenity
for neighbours, parking is of particular concern. The Cambridge Local Plan of
2018 was crystal clear on parking. For C3 dwellings in a controlled parking
area the ratio must be no more than one parking space per dwelling. This could
only be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. There were none in this case. It
was close to a bus route, the railway station and just a short walk or cycle
from the city centre. This application sought seven spaces for three dwellings,
over twice the permitted ratio. It also required the loss of five heavily used
on-street residents’ parking places. This would be grossly unfair for existing
residents. vi.
The plot was on a three-way corner
which was already a dangerous junction. Since the opening of Kaleidescope and the expansion of Cambridge Assessment, the
roads were much more congested at peak times than implied by Highways
Department. vii.
The 2015 scheme did not propose
removing any TPO trees, so it was unreasonable and unacceptable that this
(smaller) scheme destroyed a protected tree. Expressed concern the Tree Officer
has seemingly waved through the removal of one of the iconic protected
sycamores and the loss of many other trees and garden landscaping. viii.
Suggested the application did not
satisfy Policy 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan [designs that enhance or preserve
the character of a Conversation Area]. Mr Seamark (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) submitted a statement to the
Committee about the application: i.
Made a representation for two
reasons: a.
Had received a number of concerns raised by
residents. Had not received any representation in favour of the development. b.
The objections raised show there was a risk of the Council
contravening, or at least appearing to contravene, its own Local Plan.
Residents who wanted to seek planning permission must abide by the Local Plan.
Both City Council and County Council must respect the Local Plan, and be seen
to respect it; otherwise they risked
undermining it, with the associated
likelihood of increased appeals and objections further congesting an already
overstretched planning service. ii.
The main objections raised were: a.
Residents raised concerns that the
proposed development was not in line with the character of the Conservation
Area. b.
Removal of a tree subject to the
TPO and the risk to a second, along with the removal of 9 other unprotected
trees. This appeared to conflict with policy 52 of the Local Plan. c.
Parking spaces were in short
supply. The proposal acknowledged this by seeking to assign more than the
recommended number of spaces per household, yet this did not create more space
on the streets: it required removal of spaces elsewhere. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Overdevelopment of the site which
is in Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area. ii.
The application was out of
character with the area and did not respond to context. iii.
The application failed to meet
Local Plan policies 56 [integrated into its surroundings] and 57 [landscape
impacts and available views]. iv.
Expressed concern over loss of
trees, particularly T2.T1 and T2 should be retained, there was no reason to cut
down these local landmarks. v.
Asked the Committee to confirm the
TPOs regardless of whether the application was approved or not. Councillor Jones (Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application: i.
Took issue with officer support
for over provision of on-site parking. Only three spaces were required, not
four, as per the number of dwellings. There were good local transport links. ii.
Traffic and congestion levels
[including taxi and parking space usage] would be exacerbated by the
development. iii.
Clarendon Road and Fitzwilliam
Road were used as rat runs to avoid traffic in other areas. iv.
There
was an absence of traffic survey work by the County Council. So it was unclear
to date whether there are any “significant safety implications” for local
residents as defined under Para 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. v.
To
conclude, increasing motor traffic movements and the loss of residents' parking
bays should be seen as unacceptable in an area experiencing increasing traffic
pressures from other recent developments. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to
include informatives regarding: i.
Hedgehog
friendly fencing. ii.
Residents'
parking not being available to new builds so it was clear to the developers
that they could not access street parking in the controlled parking zone by
applying for a residents' permit. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 3) 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 plus
two extra informatives relating to:
i.
Hedgehog
friendly fencing.
ii.
Residents'
parking not being available to new builds so it was clear to the developers
that they could not access street parking in the controlled parking zone by
applying for a residents' permit. With delegated authority to Officers to draft the informatives
in consultation with the Chair and Spokes. |
||||||||||||||||
20/01568/HFUL - 23 North Street PDF 118 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a first-floor roof extension and
associated works, to create an additional 2no. bedrooms and an en-suite. The Committee received representation in objection to the application
from a resident of North Street:
i.
Was speaking on behalf of several objectors.
ii.
The application would have an adverse effect on the
direct neighbours who lived next door to the properties.
iii.
The planning officer’s presentation omitted 6 and 8
Canterbury Street which would also be affected by the proposed extension.
iv.
23 North Street was one of three houses (including
21 and 25 North Street) designed together to form a terrace built in the garden
of 59 Histon Road; the original design with subterranean bedrooms and gardens
ensured no overlooking into neighbouring properties; the importance of no
overlooking had been highlighted in the original planning application.
v.
Building a third story would significantly affect
59 Histon Road; the extension would mean that privacy of the house and garden
would be compromised.
vi.
In
addition, no’s 2, 4, 6 and 8 Canterbury Street [which backed on to North
Street] would be overlooked with a large widow [bedroom picture window] at the
front of the extension, so occupiers’ privacy would be reduced for these
properties. vii.
A bedroom picture window was better suited to a
property that overlooked landscapes not a tight residential urban area. viii.
No. 11 North Street provided the model for the
church gable end picture window; the objector of this application (20 Benson
Street) noted they could see direct in the bedroom of 11 North Street and this
would be the same for no’s 24& 26 Benson Street.
ix.
Reiterated a picture window was completely
unsuitable for a house on North Street which can be viewed into by neighbours.
x.
If the application were permitted this would change
the look of the terrace and set a precedent which could result in further
overlooking and loss of privacy for surrounding properties.
xi.
Future extensions could lead to a confusion of
different designs. xii.
Stated that City Councillor Todd-Jones had
indicated the goal posts of planning objections had shifted regarding new built
properties on North Street; overlooking into neighbouring properties was
irrelevant. xiii.
However, it should be highlighted these new build properties
did not have the same impact on neighbouring properties as these faced garages
and hedges or end of terraced walls. Therefore, this point was relevant. Mr Bailey (Applicant)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. Mr Robinson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee
in support of the application. City Councillor
Payne (Castle Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
The objection to the application was two-fold.
ii.
Firstly, in terms of aesthetics, this property sat
in a group of three, an additional storey on only one building would look
strange and be out of character with the area.
iii.
North
Street sat within a Conservation Area, and the conservation report had noted
this would be out of character with the area.
iv.
The application would also lead to neighbouring
properties being overlooked and would feel crowded on the narrow streets.
v.
Secondly, if this application were approved, it
would then set a clear precedent for the neighbouring houses to do the same. This would substantially change the character
of the area and lead to other houses being overlooked. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to reject the officer recommendation of refusal to
the application. Resolved
(unanimously) to approve
the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following
reasons: i.
Positive
addition of a high-quality application to the street scene which enhances and
improves the Conservation Area. Resolved
(unanimously) to delegate
to planning officers to include the
standard conditions for the approval of the application in terms of standard
time for commencement; development in accordance with approved plans;
materials; the removal of permitted development rights under Class B of the TCP
(GPD)O 2015; and the rear bedroom windows to be of obscure glazing in
perpetuity. |
||||||||||||||||
20/01033/FUL - 12 Gilmour Road PDF 117 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a ground floor extension and access
gate alterations within the building curtilage and projection of first floor
sitting room window onto the existing terrace. To the rear lower section, the
existing decked area was to be changed into habitable space and a square
skylight would be added over this area to fully enclose it. Full height sliding
glazed doors would be fitted behind the existing rear gate and railings which
are to be retained with the gate swing being adjusted so it would swing
outwards rather than inwards. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Accordia The representation covered the following issues: i.
Would be speaking on behalf of
residents who had objected to this application. ii.
The Committee had previously
refused an application which contained elements of this proposal. iii.
Requested the Committee refused
the application. iv.
Believed
the Planning Officer’s recommendation and Conservation Officer’s opinion appeared
to be influenced by the Inspector’s report which dismissed the appeal. v.
The Inspector concluded the ground
floor and first floor elements of the proposal would not detract much from the
architectural uniformity of the dwellings in the area; disagreed with this
statement as outlined in the submitted objections. vi.
The Inspector gave no
consideration to the effect on car and cycle parking or loss of amenity space;
yet the Inspector did not grant planning permission for the ground and first
elements alone through a split decision. vii.
When considering the previous
application, the Committee assessed the negative impact on the wider community
through loss of amenity value against the benefit to an individual property
owner. Believed this assessment remained as critical and it was residents who
represented the broader social and community impact on Accordia. viii.
A key element of the sense of
community amongst residents was they had brought into the style of the
development; the landscape was dense with overlooking. The internal open
spaces, terraces and balconies were an essential feature for the occupant of
each dwelling. ix.
The application would restrict the
open space within the footprint and would leave minimal space for a car which
could lead to on street parking. Storage
capacity would be lost for such as items as a bicycle. x.
Residents championed the design,
style, and layout of Accordia. xi.
Stated
the achievement of the Article 4 direction, designation of the Conservation
Area, the recently approved Design Guide, and the parking scheme were the
result of initiatives by residents working with City Council officers to
preserve the integrity of the site. xii.
The application was unacceptable
on its own merits and would bring no public benefit. xiii.
If the application were approved
similar applications would be repeated which could increase on street parking
and damage the internal open spaces that were an essential element to the site.
xiv.
Accordia
should remain a model for good architectural practice. xv.
Believed
the application contravened planning policies 56 b and f, 58 g, 82 b and the Cycle Parking
Guide SPD Ms Richardson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor
Robertson addressed the Committee about the application on behalf of Councillor
Thornburrow (Trumpington Ward Councillor).
i.
Represented those residents who had objected to the
application. Some points raised would be theirs, other points highlighted were
Councillor’s Thornburrow’ s personal point of view.
ii.
The
relevant policies to reference were policies 55 (responding to the context), 58, a, b, c, f, and g
(altering and extending existing buildings) and 61 (conservation and
enhancement of Cambridge’s historic environment).
iii.
Gilmour Road was one of the mews streets in the eastern
quarter. The houses had been designed to face towards the mews street for
primary access and to the landscape side for amenity.
iv.
Each dwelling was designed to have a discreet on-plot
car parking and secure cycle provision with shared access to be free of car
parking.
v.
A distinctive theme in the design of the buildings
was the contrast of solid and void which believed had been achieved with care.
vi.
The covered space to the side of the dwelling had
the added benefit of enabling glimpses through to the garden behind. vii.
The profile of the terrace was simple, sharply
defined and uncluttered at all levels. Elevations of the terrace displayed a
strong consistency in appearance. viii.
The proposed ground floor extension would infill
the rear of the covered space and unbalance the solid to void relationship.
Glimpses through to the garden would be lost.
ix.
The remaining space may be of sufficient
size to park a car but would not allow for the additional parking of cycles,
refuse storage and recycling bins. Storage of other domestic items would be
compromised.
x.
In practice the application would probably result
in the car being parked in the street.
xi.
Adequate cycle parking standards would not be met. xii.
The existing ground floor plans showed the front
doors to the properties on Gilmore Road were not straight off the road but off
the car port. The design of the single gate ensured the car was parked towards
the rear of the space and created covered clear access and accessibility to the
main door. xiii.
The application proposed the gate was to be doubled
to allow the car to be parked away from the glazed wall of the extension and
closer to the road. This would reduce the area in front of the main door making
it less accessible to enter the house. xiv.
The main external amenity spaces were across the
whole of the rear of the property, some at ground floor level and some at first
floor level linked by a staircase and walkway. The proposed ground floor
extension and that to the first floor living room
would reduce the amenity space by over 40%. The was 34sqm of amenity space
would be reduced to 14sqm, a considerable loss for a family home. xv.
Stated the proposed rear elevation was inaccurate
and misleading, the impression given is that the appearance at ground floor
would not change but the formation of the living accommodation behind the gates
would be clearly seen and incongruous. xvi.
The full width infill would lead to the loss of the
exposed brickwork, separation, and the openness to the side of the house. The
pattern and strong rhythm between the fenestration and the gates would be lost
harming the appearance and character of the dwelling, terrace, and the
distinctive enclosure to the communal garden. xvii.
The outlook from within the extended living space
out to the garden would be through the metal gates immediately to the front of
the window; believed this to be poor design and would not be acceptable on a
new build scheme. xviii.
Pressure to remove the gates in future would be
inevitable. xix.
Access from the house to the garden had been
carefully provided for in the original design by the principle room opening on
to the internal courtyard space and then into the garden. The application would
result in the access directly from the living room to the garden, a less
practicable arrangement. xx.
Overall, the application would reduce the
flexibility of the home for future occupants and would not represent a public
benefit. xxi.
While the Inspector concluded that neither of the
ground or first floor elements would detract from the architectural uniformity
of the dwelling, believed the reasons outlined in this objection had shown this
would detract from the uniformity. xxii.
The Inspector gave no consideration to the effect
on car and cycle parking and did not exercise discretion to grant planning
permission for the ground and first floor elements through a split decision
which would have been possible. xxiii.
With reference to the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 the
proposed extension has not responded positively to the distinctive context and
failed to comply with policy 55. xxiv.
The
extension was not a high-quality design as required; and did not comply with
policy 58, a,
b, c, f, and g. xxv.
The
harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area conflicts with
policy 61and there was no public benefit. xxvi.
The proposal was unacceptable. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to defer the
consideration of the application, pending the submission of further detailed
drawings by the planning officer and / or a visit to the site. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1214/FUL - 56-58 Chesterton Road PDF 174 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). Councillor
Tunnacliffe (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application and then withdrew from the debate: i. Was speaking on behalf of objectors. ii. The area was heavily populated with drinking establishments such the Fort St George, Portland Arms, The Waterman, Thirsty, The Boat House (considerable in size) and The Old Spring. iii. All the named public houses were within fifty to seventy-five yards of the application creating a dense provision which should be taken into consideration. iv. Residents have reported the area is subjected to anti-social behaviour believed to derive from drinking. Also parallel to Chesterton Road off Trafalgar Road was an alleyway which was a known spot for drug taking which also increased the anti-social behaviour in the area. v. Pavements in the area were narrow, this is highlighted by the establishment Thirsty which is twenty yards from the application. This had a heavily used outside drinking area which made it difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to keep to the pavements going east and east west. vi. Due to the current climate of COVID-19 it would be reasonable to assume that drinking would take place outside creating further obstructions with additional street furniture and individuals. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to defer the consideration of the
application, pending the submission of further detailed and technical drawings
by the applicant to show the redesign of the basement layout (including the
toilets) and explore the issue of disabled access and an assessment of it from
the Access Officer. Councillor Tunnacliffe withdrew
from the meeting for this item following addressing the Committee by speaking
on behalf of objectors to the application and subsequently took no part in the
discussion or decision making which concluded with the decision to defer it. |
||||||||||||||||
18/0887/FUL - 75 Newmarket Road PDF 202 KB Minutes: The application was deferred as the Committee ran out of time to hear
the application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/02998/FUL - Land at Dundee Close PDF 291 KB Minutes: The application was deferred as the Committee ran out of time to hear
the application. |