Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Main Room - The Cambridge Corn Exchange, 2 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QB. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Councillor Dryden said he would join the committee during the first
planning application as he had another commitment beforehand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes Minutes: No minutes were received for consideration. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00659/FUL 71 - 73 Fen Road 10am PDF 160 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of the existing development and the erection
of 12no. dwellings together with access, car parking, bin and bike stores,
landscaping and associated infrastructure. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following (written statements read by the Committee Manager): · Resident
of 5 Cheney Way. · Resident
of 9 Cheney Way. The representations covered the following issues: i.
5 Cheney Way: “My statement and
the concerns are the same as I expressed previously: Currently we have back
garden door access to our house through the public path at the back of our
garden. We use this back door access to have access to services such as
building and garden works. It seems that the current public path will be
closed, and we will lose the back garden door access to our house. I am very
concerned about this loss of backdoor access. I would like to be assured as how
the new council house proposal is going to provide the current back door access
to our house.” ii.
9 Cheney Way: a.
“As one of about 6 houses in Cheney Way most
affected by the new development, in addition to my written submission of a few
months ago, I would like to stress that since the new houses will be slightly
higher than those behind on Cheney Way, there will be an issue of overlooking. b.
These are clearly chalet style houses with two
storeys - these would be more acceptable to the most affected residents of
Cheney Way. Visually they would blend in better with existing buildings around
the area. c.
They could still be built to modern standards of
insulation etc. One further important point I would like to make is - if, as
has been stated, there are no plans to build further back onto the ‘ Five Trees
‘ area - why build a road through the houses? This could easily become an
access road for further development.” Mr Digby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer's
recommendation that an informative be added to encourage the use of biodiverse
roof on the bike sheds. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that an
informative be added to encourage the applicant to consider, if possible, the
re-use of the existing bollards on the footpath to the front of the site which are to be removed as part of
development at the site entrance onto open space. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 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, subject to:
i.
the prior completion of an
Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
ii.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
iii.
informatives (with delegated
authority for officers to draft these in consultation with Chair, Vice Chair
and Spokes) to be included on the planning permission to encourage the
Applicant to: a. use biodiverse roof on the bike sheds; b. re-use the bollards on footpath (that will
be removed as part of development) at the site entrance onto open space. Councillor Dryden did not participate in the
discussion or decision making for this item. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/01392/FUL Parkers Piece, Parkside 10:30am PDF 114 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the retention on Parker’s Piece of
an observation wheel until 31st October 2021. The Senior Planner referred to details on the Amendment Sheet. The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to revised text for the condition concerning the diesel
generator She
recommends the condition dealing with the diesel generator reads: The
diesel-powered generator with noise insulating panels shall only be used for a
maximum period of 1 month following date of permission, or up to when the solar
panel generator is installed, whichever is sooner. Following the installation of the updated mains
electricity supply, any generator shall only be used in the event of mains
power failure emergency to safely disembark patrons. It shall not be used as an
alternative supply in the event of disconnection from the mains supply
following for example non-payment. Reason: To protect the residential amenity
of neighbouring properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policy 35) The Delivery Manager advised the Committee this was a Regulation 3
application Mr Thurston (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application through a written statement read by the
Committee Manager. Councillor Porrer (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application:
i.
Ward Councillors supported the proposal for an
observation wheel but not a live fair in addition to it (which did not come
forward in the proposal).
ii.
The Wheel should not lead to over use of the open
space as its erection was time limited.
iii.
The North Pole application was not coming forward
yet, which was disappointing.
iv.
Suggested a condition for the Committee to consider
regarding the Wheel: electricity should not come from a diesel generator.
v.
Had requested this application came forward so
residents could be consulted.
vi.
The Wheel owner has used permitted development
rights to set it up. This was legal but had upset residents due to noise from
the Wheel and its diesel generator. vii.
Referred to statement from Ward Councillors in
March 2021. viii.
Supported
the updated generator condition. Requested the diesel generator use be
disallowed for the one month indicated in recommendation, except for emergency
evacuation or people on the Wheel.
ix.
Requested confirmation that herbicides/pesticides
would not be used to prepare the ground for the Wheel. (Reference Condition1). Councillor Thornburrow (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application:
i.
Parker’s Piece had been actively used by people up
to the pandemic. The aim now and in future was to provide a space for families.
ii.
The London Eye was controversial when set up, now
it was a welcome feature.
iii.
Expected positive and negative comments for the
Parker’s Piece Wheel.
iv.
Hoped an
alternative power source (electric) to fossil fuel (diesel) was used.
v.
The Wheel was already used by families although it
had only been in place a short time. The Senior Planner proposed an amendment to include an informative that
herbicides/pesticides would not be used to prepare the ground for the Wheel. The Delivery Manager proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that condition 1 should be revised as follows: The hereby approved observation wheel and
associated structures shall be fully removed and the area made good, in
accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, by the 31st October 2021 Reason: To avoid harm to the special
interest of the recreational area, and to limit visual harm to the character
and appearance of the surrounding area,
Conservation Area and nearby Listed Buildings. (Cambridge Local
Plan 2018, policy 55, 56, 58, 61 and 67) This amendment was carried
by 5 votes to 0. Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that Officers be given delegated powers to revise
wording to condition 4 (in liaison with Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes) reflecting the intention to use a solar power generator. This amendment was carried
by 5 votes to 0. The Committee: 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,
subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and as amended in her presentation;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include revised conditions
1 and 4;
iii.
an informative
included on the planning permission that herbicides/pesticides should not be
used to prepare the ground for the Wheel. Councillors Porrer and Thornburrow spoke as Ward
Councillors for this item so did not participate in the Committees’ discussion
or decision making (and for the avoidance of doubt) neither voted on the
recommendation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/00333/FUL McDonald's 639 Newmarket Road 11am PDF 103 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
installation of 2 No. rapid electric vehicle charging stations within the car
park of McDonalds and 2 No. existing parking spaces to become EV charging bays,
along with associated equipment Mr Keen (Applicant’s representative) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. Councillor H.
Davies (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application
through a written statement read by the Committee Manager:
i.
“As Committee Members will see from the
significant number of representations received from Abbey residents living near
to McDonald's, there is real concern amongst residents that installing EVCs in
the car park will lead to those car parking spaces being taken up by people
charging vehicles (rather than by customers), increasing the parking and
traffic pressure in an already very congested area.
ii.
Given that the Barnwell Road roundabout
is the biggest traffic hotspot in Abbey, where traffic causes congestion,
dangerous driving, and air pollution issues, residents are understandably
concerned about the potential impact of these proposals.
iii.
I'd request that Committee Members
please pay particular attention to the concerns of residents as per the
comments submitted, and that the impact on car parking spaces and any resulting
effects on traffic be further scrutinised before making a determination on this
application, to ensure there would be no negative impact on parking and
traffic. It is noted that the Highways Authority has not commented (their input
would be key here), and no studies have been carried out to test the assumption
of whether the chargers would be used by customers. The Highway's Authority's
view in particular is key to deciding this application.
iv.
Noting the officer's recommendation, if
the application is to be approved, could a time limit on charging be
considered?" The Committee: Resolved (by 6
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, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/01107/FUL 72 Canterbury Street 11:30am PDF 160 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for first floor rear extension to create 2no 2bed apartments. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Canterbury Street (written statement read by Committee
Manager):
i.
Spoke as the owner of 70 Canterbury Street next
door to 72 Canterbury Street. House is shown on the Block Plan with boundary
filed on the Council’s application website for this application.
ii.
The space between 72 and 70 Canterbury Street and two
windows in Objector’s property would be affected by the proposed development.
They were the stair landing window and the ground floor kitchen window.
iii.
The grounds for objections were: a.
The proposed extension would block out the light
coming onto the landing where the stairs turn, making it dangerous because the
stairs are very narrow and need to be very well lit. The space would be
enclosed outside the window by the proposed extension. b.
It would also stop the light coming into the
kitchen which was small. c.
The loss of this light was unsustainable as the
Objector would be required to use electric lights during the day forcing them
to use more electricity.
iv.
Asked for this application to be refused until the
impact of the proposed extension on Objector’s property had been dealt with. In response to a query from the Objector, the Senior Planner confirmed
there was a typing mistake in section 8.11 on page 81 of the agenda, it should
be Canterbury Street and not Canterbury Close Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation
that: i.
Condition 8 should be
amended so passive provision for electric vehicle charging points could be
provided for both parking spaces. ii.
A green roof could be
provided on the bike shed to encourage biodiversity. The amendments were noted
but not voted on. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to defer the
application to allow time for a site visit to check the impact of the proposed
extension on light in 70 Canterbury Street property. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
21/01125/HFUL 8 Kelsey Crescent 12noon PDF 125 KB Minutes: Application deferred to a future Planning
Committee to allow Objector time to present information they considered material
to their case. Information had been submitted to officers, but not uploaded
into the public domain. Members agreed to the deferral. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
S106 Variation Reports 12:30 PDF 220 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Report 1 The proposal
relates to a scheme of 22 dwellings granted planning permission in September
1995. The dwellings consist of 10 houses and 12 flats at 53-59 (odd), 60-76 and
78 Bosworth Road. All dwellings are affordable homes within the ownership of
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH). MTVH have over 2000 properties
within Cambridge. Recommendation:
Approve modification to the s106 agreement as outlined in paragraphs 8.3 and
8.4 of the Officer’s report. Report 2 The proposal
relates to a scheme of 20 dwellings granted planning permission in January
1995. The dwellings consist of 12 houses and 8 flats at 112-120 New Street and
150-178 York Street and are all affordable homes within the ownership of
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH). MTVH have over 2000 properties
within Cambridge. Recommendation:
Approve modification to the s106 agreement as outlined in paragraphs 8.3 and
8.4 of the Officer’s report. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to accept the officer recommendation to approve the modification to the
s106 Agreements covering the properties the subject matter of Reports 1 and 2. |