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: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
Minutes Minutes: No minutes of previous meetings were presented to committee for
consideration. |
||||||||||||||||
18/1678/FUL - Station Area Development PDF 779 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received
an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the proposed erection of two new buildings comprising:
i.
5,351sqm (GEA) of Class B1(a)/ Class B1(b) floorspace
including ancillary accommodation/ facilities with associated plant;
ii.
162 cycle parking spaces, and 8 off-gauge cycle
spaces for Block F2 and an Aparthotel (Class C1) comprising 125 suites,
terrace;
iii.
ancillary accommodation and facilities with multi-storey
car park for Network Rail (total GEA 12,153sqm) comprising 206 car parking
spaces and 34 cycle parking spaces for Block B2 with associated plant;
iv.
hard and soft landscaping;
v.
permanent access from Devonshire Road to the
Cambridge Station Car Park, utilising the existing pedestrian and cycle access,
restricted to emergency access to the railway only. The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the
pre-Committee amendments to recommendation on the amendment sheet. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following: · The
Chair of South Petersfield Residents Association. · Cambridge
Cycling Campaign. The representations covered the following issues: i.
The design is not sufficiently
safe and attractive for a busy cycling and walking route. ii.
The B2 building footprint is
bigger than in the outline application. iii.
Queried where taxis would over
rank when not in the car park. iv.
More cycle parking was required. v.
The Chisholm Trail would be one of
the most heavily used cycling routes in the city. vi.
Refuse lorries would have to
reverse along the northern access route, so a segregated cycle route was needed
on this. vii.
Asked for the application to be
refused for the following reasons: a.
The footprint of building F2 would
block the cycle route. b.
The mass of building B2 and its
proximity to Devonshire Road was damaging to the character of the Conservation
Area. viii.
The Applicant and Network Rail should
review the proposed design as it changed since the initial application. ix.
Expressed concern: a.
That the Chisholm Trail was not
being protected as per Local Plan Policy 80. b.
About safety:
i. Shared
space by cycles and vehicles.
ii. Sharp
corners.
iii. Poor
visibility. x.
The Applicant tentatively agreed
to review the design of the northern access, but no progress appears to have
been made about the southern part of the site. xi.
Department for Transport Cycle
infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20) principles were not being met eg roundabout
design. Mr Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application: i.
Had written to the Applicant when the application
was submitted to ask why several elements of the Local Plan Policies were being
ignored in their designs. Some points were then added eg electric charging
points in the car park. ii.
Water supply for the city was a concern. New
buildings should harvest rain through grey water recycling facilities (to
respond to climate change). The buildings in the application did not appear to
do so. iii.
The F2 office block would overshadow neighbouring
residences and create a sense of enclosure. iv.
The F2 building footprint was now bigger than in
outline plans. v.
The proximity of F2 and B2 buildings would create a
‘canyon effect’. vi.
Changes to the road layout did not address safety
concerns for cyclists and walkers. vii.
There was too much conflict between cyclists and
pedestrians in the station square. viii.
A segregated cycle route was needed between F2 and
B2 buildings and behind the square so people could access the station. ix.
The station area already had lots of office space, no more was needed. Housing should be provided
instead. Particularly as COVID-19 has shown people can/prefer to work from
home. x.
It was preferable to make some of the office space
housing now, rather than trying to [retrospectively] convert it later when the
housing may not meet space standards. xi.
The B2 hotel and car park had a larger footprint
than allowed in the outline permission. It would loom over nearby residences to
a greater extent than expected when outline permission was given. xii.
Requested the application be refused for the
following reasons: a.
It failed to respond to climate change as per Local
Plan Policy 28. b.
F2 would impact on local residences. c.
Office space should not be retrospectively be
converted into housing space. d.
The gap was too narrow between the office blocks. e.
The B2 hotel would extend too close to the cycle
route and dominate local housing. The Committee: Only those members who attended the meeting on
17 June took part in the discussion/vote on this item. Councillors
Smart (Chair), Baigent (Vice Chair), Green, McQueen, Porrer, Thornburrow and
Tunnacliffe. Councillor Page-Croft did not take part in the discussion or decision
making for this item. Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 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 with 2 abstentions) to accept both
reasons for ‘minded to’ refusal and the wording therein. Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
The proposed development fails to provide high
quality cycling infrastructure commensurate with Cambridge as the leading
cycling city in the UK and fails to demonstrate it is compatible with the
objectives of and safeguards the safety and prioritisation of pedestrians and
cycling in the area including the Chisholm Trail. This is because the movement,
safety and promotion of cycling as an active transport mode for all users both
travelling through the site and for those accessing the Cambridge Railway
Station / Cycle Point and utilising the strategic cycle network in the CB1
area, is not prioritised through the provision of a physically segregated and
protected cycle route. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 25, 56,
57, 59 and 80 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018), the NPPF (Feb 2019)
paragraphs 104 and 109 and Local Transport Note 1/20, Cycle Infrastructure
Design (DfT).
ii.
By virtue of the scale, massing and footprint of
building B2 in close proximity to Carter Bridge and in regard of views from
Devonshire Road, the proposed building would appear visually cramped, overly
prominent and detract from the character and appearance of the existing area
and setting of the adjacent Mill Road Conservation Area. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policies 55, 56, 57 and 61 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2018) and NPPF (Feb 2019) paragraphs 124 and 196. |
||||||||||||||||
18/0887/FUL - 75 Newmarket Road PDF 228 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a proposed mixed use development, comprising part
demolition of the existing building, with the retention of the front and side
elevations and erection of 7 studio units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and
Commercial/Restaurant/Public House (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and B1 in the
alternative) flexible use, with associated works. Mr Burton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Porrer
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
The green roof should be
maintained in perpetuity. ii.
There should be a manager’s
flat above the pub if it is converted into a mixed-use property. The amendments were carried
unanimously. 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;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional
condition:
a. The green roof should be maintained in
perpetuity.
iii.
an informative included on the
planning permission in respect of: a. There should be a manager’s flat above the pub
if it is converted into a mixed-use property. Councillor Green
sought clarification that this was a minor application. If not, the item would
return to committee for reconsideration. The Planning Officer said he
understood the application to be minor, but would check this. Post meeting
note: The threshold for a major development is any application that involves
mineral extraction, waste development, the provision of 10+ dwellings / a site
area over 0.5 Hectares or a floorspace of over 1,000sqm / an area of 1 hectare.
Anything smaller than this would be considered as minor development. This application is for 9 units and the GIA is 705m2. Therefore, the scheme is defined as a minor planning application. |
||||||||||||||||
19/1770/FUL - 32 St Andrews Street PDF 191 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for change of use of
the former Cambridge Building Society branch (A2/B1) to an (A4) public house
use with ancillary staff accommodation and associated development including the
insertion of new openings and the relocation of the entrance. The Senior Planning Officer updated his report by referring to amended
details for paragraph 0.7. The amended text is in bold 0.7 Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan
2018 states that homes created through change of use from non-residential uses
should seek to meet space standards where practicable to do. It is acknowledged
that the overall size of the two units do not meet the internal residential
space standards requirements. However, given that the proposed converted
accommodation will be ancillary to the A4 use of the development it is not
considered necessary to apply the same amount of weight to Policy 50 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018 in this instance. The sizes of the two bedrooms in
the proposed managers flat have floor areas of 9.8m2 and 12m2 which both exceed
the minimum space standard requirements for a single bedroom and a double
bedroom. Within the unit for the staff accommodation the two bedrooms
also exceed the minimum space standard requirements for single bedrooms, staff
bedroom 1 measures 10.9m2 and staff bedroom 2 measures 9m2. Therefore,
on balance given that the policy does not state that it is essential for
conversions to meet space standards and the residential uses will be ancillary
to the A4 use with bedroom sizes that meet the space standard requirements,
overall the quality of the living environment is considered to be acceptable in
respect of internal space. Staff
accommodation
Mr Durrant (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. 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 amendment to condition 50 set out above. |
||||||||||||||||
20/02876/FUL - 78 Grantchester Meadows PDF 156 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for a ground floor rear extension and loft extension, complete
with dormers, creation of new dwelling and all associated works. Mr Murray John (Applicant) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
An additional informative:
There should be a net gain in biodiversity from the development. ii.
An additional condition to
secure M4(2) compliance. This amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a hedgehog friendly fencing informative be
included in the landscape condition. 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.
An additional condition to secure M4(2)
compliance. iii. An amended condition to secure ‘hedgehog boundary access features’. iv.
An informative
be included on the planning permission in respect of: a.
There
should be a net gain in biodiversity from the development. |
||||||||||||||||
20/01033/FUL - 12 Gilmour Road PDF 119 KB 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. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from an Accordia resident. The written statement was read to Members by the
Committee Manager. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Spoke on behalf of a number of
residents of Accordia who objected to the proposal. ii.
Believed objections recorded
earlier in 2020 remained valid. The Committee had already refused an
application containing the elements of this proposal and residents asked the
committee to refuse this one. iii.
Did not intend to repeat the
representation made at the committee meeting of Sept 10th but wished to comment
on the Inspectors report of Dec 2019 and the recently published Design Guide
for Accordia. iv.
Were of the view that the Planning
Officer’s recommendation and Conservation Officer’s opinion appeared to be
heavily influenced by their interpretation of the Inspectors report that
dismissed the appeal. Objectors believed that the Officer's recommendation
needed thorough examination. v.
Queried whether the proposal would
detract from the architectural uniformity of the dwellings in the terraces was
a good test. The Inspector focused on 'visibility' whereas an assessment should
also take account of the main architectural characteristics of the dwelling and
the terrace blocks. vi.
The proposal at ground floor is to
put a glazed box within the part covered space, topped by a "geometrical”
shaped lantern or rooflight. The sections give a sense of how the full height
glazing would be at the back of the railings and gates fronting the garden. The
proposed rear elevation does not give an indication of this relationship and
the conversion of a courtyard area to indoor living space. The original
courtyard transparency would not continue (contrary to what is said in the
design and access statement). The gate/railings would be a partial screen at
the front of the new windows and one can speculate on what subsequent action
will take place. vii.
Even with the retention of the
'gates' there would be two picture windows, disrupting the appearance and
architectural composition at ground floor level from the communal garden. viii.
Estimated there were 37 homes on
the site built in the same style. An essential feature was the internal open
spaces and the continuity of design that is created. ix.
Highlighted the Inspector did not
exercise his discretion to grant planning permission for the ground and first
floor elements through a split decision. x.
The Design Guide for Accordia’s
primary purpose was to assist owners as they consider changes to their
properties. The working group fully recognise that owners may wish to adapt or
renovate their properties over time and the Guide sets out on in a clear manner
the considerations that need to be taken into account before embarking on
change or replacement of key features that are integral to the homogeneity of
the Accordia development. xi.
Objectors believed that Accordia
is, and should in the long term remain, a model not just of architectural good
practice, but also of residents’ commitment to their surroundings and to
building a community. xii.
The Guide is a manifestation of
the intent along with the work undertaken to support the Article 4 Direction
and Conservation area status. xiii.
Objectors urged you to reject the
proposal as it contravenes 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 Thornburrow (Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the
Committee about the application: i.
The Committee should consider the impact of the
application on: a.
The building and setting. b.
Current and future occupiers. ii.
The building was of national importance as Accordia
was the first site to receive a national design award. iii.
Previous iterations of the application were stopped
before Article 4 came into effect. iv.
The effect of harm/public benefit of the proposed
work should be considered. There may be some harm from the work to the cohesion
of the character of the area/terrace. v.
There was space for car parking but not bikes or
other paraphernalia, so a car would likely be parked on the street. Cycle
storage standards were not met. There was not enough bike and bin storage
space. vi.
The poor design meant the application would not be
considered acceptable if it came forward as a new (independent) scheme. vii.
The application would impact on access from the
living area into communal areas. viii.
Referenced the 2018 Local Plan. The application: a.
Did not respond to context. b.
Did not meet Policies 55, 58 or 61. The Committee: Resolved (by 7
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. Councillor Thornburrow did
not take part in the discussion or decision making for this item. |