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
Note: To reconvene and consider items deferred from 21 April
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor McQueen. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
20/02504/S73 - Varsity Hotel and Spa, 24 Thompsons Lane PDF 116 KB Minutes: The application sought approval for the removal of condition 2 (vehicle
parking) of planning permission 08/1610/FUL. The case officer advised the Committee that the application should be
deferred as officers needed to review additional fire strategy information
which had been submitted following the Planning Committee on the 21 April. Additionally
statutory consultees (the highways and fire authorities) are being re-consulted
on the revised information recieved. The Committee: Deferred the
application. |
||||||||||||||||
20/03838/FUL - 38 High Street, Chesterton PDF 189 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing house
and the erection of 3 dwellings. The Committee received representations in objection to the application. The first representation covered the following issues: i.
A hedge was removed between Alan
Percival Court and 38 High Street last year due to the trees dying. ii.
Referred to the drawings and noted
that a 5m high hedge would be put up and raised concerns about the height of
the hedge due to the lack of light to the ground floor flats of Alan Percival
Court. iii.
Was looking at putting up trees
along the rear of 38 High Street and would like to discuss this with planning. The second representation covered the following issues: i.
The close
proximity of the boundary wall and the height of the trees at 5m was a
looming and overbearing feature. This would be oppressive if it ran the length
of the boundary wall. ii.
The proposal to plant along the
boundary wall would provide not only a screen for privacy but also a vista. iii.
Was sympathetic to the provision
of a screen but did not want this to become oppressive to neighbouring
properties. iv.
Was pleased with this application
as the buildings were further away and closer to the High Street. Their only
concern related to the proposed screen. Asked for a condition to be imposed
which provided a compromise between the needs of the new and existing residents
regarding the screen so that light could filter through and it would be a form
of vista. Councillor Green
proposed an amendment to the landscape condition requiring the removal of the
existing trees on the rear boundary and for specific details of the new
planting on the rear boundary to be submitted to the Planning Authority for
approval. Councillor Smart seconded this proposal. The Delivery
Manager Development Management advised against the imposition of such a
condition as officers were of the view that the application did not make the
situation worse and therefore the imposition of the condition was unreasonable. The amendment to impose
Councillor Green’s proposed additional condition was carried by 6 votes to 1. 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
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following: a. amendment
to condition 15 to include reference to two EV charging points; b. amendment
to condition 21 to require the removal of the existing trees on the rear
boundary and for the specific details of the new planting on the rear boundary
to be submitted for approval to the Planning Authority. |
||||||||||||||||
20/04303/S73 - 1 Grosvenor Court PDF 127 KB Minutes: The Committee received a s73 application to
vary condition 2 (Approved Plans) of permission 19/1250/S73 to permit the
introduction of roof terraces to the second-floor flats and changes to the
external appearance including height of clay tile cladding lowered to line
through with first floor balconies to south east and south west elevation,
format of rooflights changed north east elevation, rear elevation (north west)
window proportions changed, height of parapet dropped, and balustrades
introduced to first floor balconies. The Planning officer referred to details on the Amendment Sheet. John Wilson (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the s73 variation application 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, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following informatives: a. that
the flat roof space adjoining the roof terrace should not be used as an amenity
space; and b. to
encourage green roofs where possible (with pointers as to which roofs the
informative is referring) where possible. |
||||||||||||||||
20/00190/FUL - 44 George Street PDF 158 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing dwelling and
replaced with new 2.5 storey dwelling and associated works. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Objected to the application for 3
reasons: overlooking, over-shading and parking. ii.
Noted this was the fourth
application for a new building on this site since 2016. iii.
At the second floor, the windows
on the rear elevation were full height windows. The rooms were dual aspect so
would have windows at the front therefore enquired why the windows at the back
had to be so large. Occupants would be able to look directly into rooms and
gardens of numbers 42 and 48 and potentially beyond. iv.
Asked how condition 17 requiring
the 'obscured glazing to be retained in perpetuity' would be enforced. v.
Noted that the report made
reference to only one of the previous applications, 17/0671 and the subsequent
appeal but a reference to application 16/1817 should also have been included
which was rejected on the basis of overlooking into neighbouring properties
affecting their amenity. Asked if the Committee members were familiar with the
details of these schemes. vi.
The proposed building would be a
storey higher than existing and would impact the garden of number 48 in
particular, which was small and confined. 'Light from the sky' as explained in
the BRE guide explained how this was important for indoor and outdoor spaces
and had become more relevant during Covid lockdowns. Noted that previous
applications had included a 'sunpath study', but this
application did not have one. Full sunlight analysis and visualisations were
required to assess the impact on the amenity of neighbours in this respect. vii.
The proposals replaced two off
street car parking spaces with one - a net loss of one parking space in an area
already under high pressure for residents’ parking which had recently been
exacerbated by the construction of three new houses opposite which did not
provide any off-street parking. viii.
Noted that the previous
application increased the housing supply by a single additional dwelling, but
this application replaced a three-bed house with a slightly larger three-bed
house. Queried the necessity of the application and the impact on the
environment The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 1 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;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, to draft and
include the following: a. an
additional condition regarding the provision of EV charging points; and b. an
additional informative referencing clean air and the use of coal and wood
burning fires. |
||||||||||||||||
20/04824/FUL - 130 Queen Ediths Way PDF 177 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing 2 storey
house and replacement with three, two-person one bedroom flats and two, three
person two bedroom flats in a one and two storey building. The Planning Officer referred to details on the Amendment Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application.
The representation covered the following issues: i.
Was speaking on behalf of 19
objectors. ii.
The application ignored a
significant road safety issue because of the location of the property. The
junction was dangerous and in 2016 was ranked third out of 26 applications for
road safety by the Cambridge City LHI panel when applied for double yellow
lines in Strangeway Road. iii.
Referred to two bus stops on a
plan displayed during the meeting which were 30m from each entrance, one of which
was opposite Heron Close and the other was three houses down. Each bus stops
served 6 buses an hour. iv.
There were approximately 1900
pupils at three schools within 600m of the site. Strangeway Road was a
significant access route for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Children lingered
on this corner. v.
Queen Edith’s Way was narrow and
had a speed limit of 20mph but most cars and buses drove between 25-40mph. vi.
Noted that there were no proposed
allocated parking spaces and therefore every car would arrive at the property
uncertain whether they would have a parking space. vii.
Disagreed with the response
provided by the Highways Authority that there would be no impact on highway
safety. viii.
Parking provision was dangerous
and inadequate. Criticised the use of the Cambridge On-street Parking Strategy
2016 for assessing parking stress as it was out of date and not fit for
purpose. ix.
Policy 82 had not been fulfilled. x.
Queens Edith’s Way did not have
double yellow lines and experienced anti-social verge parking. xi.
Noted staff from Netherhall School
parked in Beaumount Road. A vote was taken on the officer’s recommendation to approve the
application but subject to the inclusion of additional conditions regarding: a.
EV and passive charging points and b.
the flat roof area being a green roof. Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to
reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application. ‘Minded to’ refuse reasons
were provided by Members. An adjournment followed to allow officers to consider
advice and to draft the reasons for refusal. Whilst drafting the reasons for
refusal it became apparent there was a discrepancy/uncertainty regarding
whether or not the application complied with space standards. In light of the
uncertainty, officers advised the Committee the application should be deferred
to obtain clarification of space standards compliance. Some Members indicated
that they only had concerns regarding space standards and this was why they had
voted to reject the officer’s recommendation. The Committee: Resolved unanimously to defer the
application pending clarification of the space standards compliance uncertainty.
|
||||||||||||||||
20/03704/FUL - Land adjacent 1 Lovers Walk PDF 192 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing car port and storage
area and erection of 1no. dwelling and associated curtilage. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application The representation covered the following issues: i.
Objected to the proposal as the
area was already densely populated with a couple of dozens of households within
25m of the proposed property. The addition of another household with a car
parked outside would not be a benefit to the area. ii.
There was no designated car park
for the new dwelling contrary to requirements. iii.
On the Site Block Plan - Proposed
and Existing the current depiction of the border with 72 Humberstone
was not correct. iv.
The proposed property encroached
into the small garden and would do so even more when taking into account the
excavation work necessary to lower the land and to put in foundations. It also
protrudes into the garden of 70 Humberstone Road
beyond the line defined by 1 Lovers Lane. The foundations and excavation work
needed to be completely on the land of number 7 so it should not be possible
for the building to protrude as it did in the drawings. v.
Found it problematic the plans
lacked external dimensions. vi.
The height of the property would
have a great impact on the amenity of the surrounding gardens. The plans showed
that the land would be lowered to allow for the new property. Queried the
effect on 70, 72 and 74 Humberstone Road. The
external width and length of the property was needed to understand how the
property and its foundations would fit on the land of number 7. vii.
Reclaimed bricks should be used on
any new property so that it was in keeping with the surrounding area. The
current building was built with old Cambridge bricks. Franco Montecalvo (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 a. boundary
treatment b. materials c. the
removal of householder permitted development rights for use classes A, B, C and
E; d. landscaping
requiring a separate walkway for accessibility; and iii.
delegated authority to officers,
in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include an additional
informative relating to the Party Wall Act. |