Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes Minutes: There were no minutes to approve. |
|||||||
21/01271/S73 - 74-82 Akeman Street Cambridge PDF 139 KB Minutes: The Committee received a s73 application to
vary condition 25 of ref: 19/0261/FUL (Erection of 3 no. retail units (2 x use
class A1 and 1 x use class A5), 1no. Community Centre
(use class D1) and provision of 14 no. dwellings (8 flats and 6 maisonettes)
following demolition of existing commercial units and flats). This application
seeks to change the condition from Prior to the first occupation/use of the
development, details of equipment for the purpose of extraction and filtration
of odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved extraction/filtration scheme shall be installed before
the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be retained as such.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018
policy 36) To Prior to the first use of the hot food takeaway unit, details of
equipment for the purpose of extraction and filtration of odours shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved extraction/filtration scheme shall be installed before the use hereby
permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be retained as such. Reason: To
protect the amenity of nearby properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy
36). 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. |
|||||||
20/01229/FUL - 34 Barrow Road PDF 319 KB Minutes: This item was considered and determined at the 29 July 2021 Planning Committee. |
|||||||
21/00383/FUL - 5 Luard Close PDF 177 KB Minutes: This item was considered and determined at the 29 July 2021 Planning Committee. |
|||||||
21/00437/FUL - 31 Newnham Road PDF 168 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the change of use of the ground floor of the
replacement building approved under planning permission ref. 18/1807/FUL for
business use as an office (Class E) Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that condition 6 was amended to prohibit nursery use. 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 with delegated
authority to officers to amend condition 6 to prohibit
any nursery use. |
|||||||
21/00434/HFUL - 167 Chesterton Road PDF 87 KB Minutes: This item was considered and determined at the 29 July 2021 Planning Committee. |
|||||||
20/04076/FUL - 36 Wilberforce Road PDF 181 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage and
outbuildings and the erection of a new replacement dwelling with indoor
swimming pool. The Area Development Manager updated
the report by referring to the additional information contained in the
Amendment Sheet which included: i.
Correcting figures
contained in the space standards table. ii.
Amendment to the
conclusion of the report now making reference to the
conservation area. iii.
Amendment to
condition 9 to make specific reference to the retention of the beech hedgerow
at the front of the property. iv.
Amendment to
paragraph 8.5 of the officer report; the proposal now maintains a single
entrance and exit to the site. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from the following (written statement read by
Committee Manager): · Resident
of 34 Wilberforce Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The
owners and occupants of No 34 continued to strongly object to the above
application for the reasons set out in the detailed comments filed for No 34
Wilberforce Road on the Cambridge City Planning Portal on 3 November 2020 and
which were available as part of the online file for this application. ii.
Believed
there were sound planning objections to permission being granted for the
proposed development which had not been adequately addressed in the report
prepared for the Committee. iii.
Noted a
report prepared for the Committee by the planning officer had appeared on the
public file with a publication date of 4 August and recommended approval of the
scheme in its amended form. iv.
Felt the
report did not address the lack of public benefit identified in the objections.
Nor did it adequately explain why it was desirable or necessary in the context
of the Conservation Area to demolish a perfectly good house that was in keeping
with its surroundings and which had such an important and commanding position
overlooking Wilberforce Road and Emmanuel playing fields. v.
The
"sustainability" arguments in the officer report did not stack up
next to the considerable environmental waste, emissions and disturbance that
would result from a full scale demolition and
rebuilding of a new, much larger house on site. Felt the swimming pool could be
accommodated by a low-level rear extension to the property. This would create a
fraction of the environmental impact, waste and disturbance of the present
project and would not damage an asset of the Conservation Area or affect the
amenity of adjacent properties. vi.
It was
not understood how the planning officer had been able to conclude in paragraph
8.10 that the proposals "are not considered to have an adverse impact
on the amenity of the neighbouring property (i.e. No.34)" given the
scale and nature of the new house, even in the amended application. vii.
The
suggestion in paragraph 8.21 of the officer report that "in terms of sustainability
benefits the existing property is very poor in terms of environmental
performance" ignored the fact that through refurbishment, rewiring etc
its energy efficiency rating and performance could be massively increased (as
was pointed out in the objections) and all without the acknowledged environment
damage, pollution, waste and consumption of new materials etc caused by
demolition and rebuilding. The applicant's sustainability report stated that
due to the demolition etc there would be no material savings in terms of carbon
emissions over its life – as was pointed out in the objections. The fact that
the property and its grounds had largely been left unoccupied since it was
purchased by the present owners may also have contributed to its "poor environmental
performance" but that was not an acceptable reason for favouring the grant
of planning consent. viii.
The
whole scheme involved the demolition and building of a new house on site which
would massively increase the noise and disturbance impact on those living at
No.34, for a greatly extended period and this factor was simply glossed over in
the planning officer's report at paragraph 8.22. Work is enabled to start at
0800 hrs during weekdays and on Saturdays. There would be no respite from the
huge construction project, possibly for years. ix.
The
occupants of No. 34 disagreed with the conclusion at paragraph 9.1 of the
officer's report. Contrary to that conclusion, the unnecessary demolition of
the property and rebuilding would have an adverse impact on the character of
the Conservation area and the amenity of No.34. It was not justified in terms
of "sustainability" and the expansion of the size of this property
and addition of new amenities such as the swimming pool could be readily
achieved through a less damaging, disruptive and visually intrusive rear
extension. Further, there was in substance no countervailing public benefit
whatsoever to be had from the project that justified the destruction of a
Conservation Area asset in these circumstances. x.
Even in
its amended form, this application should be rejected. Jeremy Ashworth (Architect) 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, subject to: i.
the
planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet; ii.
granted delegated
authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes,
to draft and include the following additional or amended conditions and informatives: a. to
secure on-site EV charging points; b. for
the details of cycle parking provision before development above ground level in
order to meet the policy requirements set out in the Local Plan; c. for
details of all plant and machinery to be used / provided serving the swimming
pool; d. that
condition 12 be amended to require a minimum of 10% net gain for biodiversity;
and An informative included on the planning permission
in respect of air source heat pumps. |
|||||||
21/01125/HFUL - 8 Kelsey Crescent Cambridge PDF 125 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
retrospective full planning permission seeking approval for the erection of an
ancillary annex. The Delivery Manager Development Management
corrected paragraph 8.2 of the officer’s report and commented that if the
application was refused it would not be for the Planning Committee to authorise
enforcement action, that decision (whether or not to pursue enforcement) would
be taken by the relevant authorised officer. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a local resident: i.
Expressed concern that the
development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The plans
were approved in 2019. ii.
The roof overhang was not included
in the approved plans. iii.
The roof and fascia works were
completed in March 2021. iv.
Expressed concern that the annex
could be let as a separate dwelling. v.
Had been advised that the tree had
been removed because of the groundworks. vi.
Expressed concern with the scale
of the development and the glare from the plastic fascia. vii.
Queried how officers could comment
on the development when they had not visited the site. viii.
Stated the originally approved
plans should be complied with and the annex used in accordance with the
original permission. Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Referred to a letter from the applicant which
stated previously that: 1.
The existing garage would be extended and not
demolished. 2.
They found their property too small, an extension
was what they could afford. Planned to use the extension as a multi-function
room. 3.
A second toilet and bathroom would be included in
the extension.
ii.
Queried why the extension was not attached to the
property but was built as a separate annex.
iii.
Queried why a door with a post box had been put into
the annex. iv.
Noted that the planning permission decision letter
stated that development must be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans and that failure to do so may invalidate the permission granted.
v.
When the development was being built, they
contacted the Planning Department to query what was being built and were
advised that the matter would be followed up with a retrospective planning
application. Did not agree with this approach. vi.
The height of the annex was higher than what had
been agreed. vii.
Expressed concerns regarding the overhang of the
roof. viii.
Noted that vehicles could no longer park in front
of the property. ix.
Requested that veranda extension rights should be
removed from the property and that the fascia should be changed.
i.
Had visited the site as a ward councillor.
ii.
Queried the scale of the building and whether the
application should be approved.
iii.
Queried the need for a letterbox in the annex door. The Delivery Manager Development Management made the following comments
in response to issues raised by the public speakers:
i.
The application concerned an annex and not a
dwelling.
ii.
It was not an offence to build not in accordance
with approved plans. People would take a risk if they did not build their
development in accordance with approved plans as enforcement action may be
taken if it was considered expedient to do so.
iii.
Members should consider what had been built and
whether this was acceptable in planning terms. A vote was taken on
the officer recommendation to approve the application with an additional
condition regarding remedial treatment of the fascia, with delegated authority
to officers to draft the condition. This
was lost by 1 vote to 4. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to
the Officer recommendation for the following reasons: i.
By virtue of the siting and height of the
building, together with its materials and detailing, which includes a deep
white-painted fascia and overhang, the development fails to respond to its
context and adversely affects the character and appearance of the area.
Consequently, the proposal is contrary to policies 55, 56 and 57 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. ii.
By virtue of the height, siting and design of
the building, the development is an unacceptably overbearing presence on the garden
of the adjacent property at 4 Windemere Close, contrary to Policies 55 and 57
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018. |
|||||||
21/01342/HFUL - 14 Rathmore Road PDF 77 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single storey garage extension to create space
for a workshop, the addition of 2 roof lights to the existing garage roof and
minor amendments to the south elevation of the existing garage. 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. |
|||||||
20/03966/FUL - 1 Blackhall Road PDF 133 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the change of use from one dwelling
to three flats, single storey rear extension and internal alterations. The Committee Manager read a written statement on behalf of an objector: The representation covered the following issues: i.
Objected to the planning
application amendment and referred to Policy 52 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2018). Policy
52: Protecting garden land and the subdivision of existing dwelling plots a.
Proposals for development on sites
that form part of a garden or group of gardens or that subdivide an existing
residential plot will only be permitted where: b.
the form, height and layout of the
proposed development is appropriate to the surrounding pattern of development
and the character of the area; c.
sufficient garden space and space
around existing dwellings is retained, especially where these spaces and any
trees are worthy of retention due to their contribution to the character of the
area and their importance for biodiversity; d.
the amenity and privacy of
neighbouring, existing and new properties is protected; e.
provision is made for adequate
amenity space, vehicular access arrangements and parking spaces for the
proposed and existing properties; and f.
there is no detrimental effect on
the potential comprehensive development of the wider area. ii.
The proposal by virtue of its
footprint and density represented a cramped form of development which reduced
the suburban quality of the area which is reinforced by spaciousness about and
between the dwellings. iii.
Blackhall Road is characterised
bungalows on moderately sized plots. The proposal would take up a large
proportion of the site area and the density did not reflect that of the area. iv.
The frontage would be visually
dominated by parking and did not represent a form of development where parking
was well integrated within the site and would result in significant visual
impact upon the immediate area. v.
The proposed units offered a poor
standard of accommodation. Some of the units were below the adopted National
Space Standards (Policy 50). The outlook was generally poor and bedrooms to
Flats 1 & 2 were likely to suffer noise and disturbance from other
occupants. vi.
The proposal would impact on the
tree lined boundaries that contributed to the character of the area and their
importance for biodiversity. There was also no provision for uplift of biodiversity. vii.
The windows to Flat 3 bathroom and
bedroom would look directly into the rear garden of 11 Brierley Walk. The old
boundary fence did not provide suitable screening. Philip Kratz (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,
subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
with delegated authority to officers to draft and
include the following additional conditions: a. the
removal of permitted development rights in use classes A, B and E of the GPDO; b. Explore
the practicality of providing two EV charging points on site; and to amend the
EV charging condition accordingly if applicable
iii.
informatives included on the
planning permission in respect of: a. Solar
panels / solar thermals. b. Air
source heat pumps c. Encouraging
a more sustainable heating source than a gas boiler. |