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: Apologies were received from Councillor Smart. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 24 March 2021, 21 April 2021 (as
amended) and 28 April 2021 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chair. In the minutes for 21 April Councillor Porrer asked for a minor change
to the notes for 20/03843/FUL Carlyle House. In the sum up of her amendment at
committee "mast storage location" was mentioned, whereas in fact it
was just "mast relocation" and the same where it is repeated in the
decision at (ii) b. Details were correct on the decision notice from
Planning Department (available on-line). |
|||||||||||||
20/02504/S73 - Varsity Hotel and Spa, 24 Thompsons Lane 10am PDF 136 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for removal of condition 2 (vehicle parking) of
planning permission 08/1610/FUL. At 21st April 2021
Planning Committee, Members resolved to defer the application due to concerns
over the fire safety matters and members requested a representative of
Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue be present at the committee meeting to answer
members questions and concerns in relation to fire safety matters. Following on
from the deferral of the application a site meeting had taken place between the
case officer, the applicants and fire safety consultant. Additional information
had also been submitted in the form of a fire strategy and a further
consultation on this document had taken place with Cambridgeshire Fire and
Rescue and Cambridgeshire County Council Highways authority. The Senior Planner
updated his report by referring to the amendment sheet and updated condition wording
in his presentation:
i.
Additional conditions were recommended as follows: a.
The area within the hotel site available for
visitor drop off and taxi turning shall be retained throughout the lifetime of
the development to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward
gear. The area shall be used solely for
that purpose and shall not be used for the parking of cars. Reason: To avoid obstruction to traffic in
Thompson`s Lane and in the interest of highway safety, and to ensure the area
is retained free of obstruction for fire safety reasons. (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 policy 81). b.
The hotel shall continue to offer a valet parking
service for all disabled guests throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason: To secure the provision of an
adequate car parking service to meet the needs of disabled visitors. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2018 policy 82).
ii.
Officer recommendation: The proposed loss of the
disabled car parking space subject to the conditions which retain the ability
for taxis to enter and leave the site in forward gear and the provision of a
valet car parking service for disabled guests throughout the lifetime of
development is on balance considered to be acceptable. Mr Davies
(Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative concerning the provision of signs
giving information where taxis could park when dropping off/collecting
passengers from the hotel. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Dryden requested a recorded vote. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to grant the S73
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 the
amendment in the Officer presentation (listed above);
ii.
an informative included on the planning permission concerning signage
giving information where taxis could park when dropping off/collecting
passengers from thehotel. Votes in favour of application: Councillors Baigent, Flaubert, Gawthrope
Wood, Porrer and Thornburrow. Vote not in favour of application: Councillor Dryden. |
|||||||||||||
20/04824/FUL - 130 Queen Ediths Way 10:30am PDF 194 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought
approval for demolition of 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 Planner
updated her report by referring to updated condition wording on the amendment
sheet:
i.
The recommendation is for approval subject to
conditions.
ii.
Condition 13 – removal of permitted development
rights for gates. This condition has been attached as recommended by Highways. The Planner/Chair allowed the Objector to present parking stress levels
pictures and his own survey information to the Committee as a late
representation. The Applicant had been made aware of details before Committee. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Strangeways Road: i.
Referred to previous objections
about the cutting of parking provision. ii.
Expressed concern regarding the
risk from traffic flow. iii.
The Developer/Applicant had
submitted a traffic flow survey after being invited to do so in the day time by
council officers. The Developer conducted their survey at night, as set out in
the Officer’s report. iv.
The Objector took issue with the
Developer’s survey and undertook his own one day before committee. The details
in this contradicted the Developer’s survey. v.
Requested the development be
refused as it was overdevelopment of the site. Councillor Page-Croft (Ward Councillor) addressed
the Committee about the application:
i.
Was pleased that a parking survey
had been done, and that parking spaces on Queen Edith Way were not to be
included as they were unsuitable
for on street parking.
ii.
This was a very narrow road with
double decker buses going up and down every 10 minutes.
iii.
There were also young adults
cycling along the road, not always aware that other traffic also used the road
too.
iv.
If cars parked on the road then a
serious accident was likely. Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that external letter box
details should be submitted as part of planning conditions. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that the application was a car free development, so should
not add to parking stress in the area (by people living in the development but
parking in neighbouring streets). The Planner suggested an informative drawing
the Applicant’s attention to four car parking spaces being made available for
five properties, car free travel was encouraged and the application should not
add to parking stress in the area. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 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 amendment sheet;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include an additional
conditions that external letter box details should be submitted;
iii.
an informative included on the planning permission,
drawing the Applicant’s attention to four car parking spaces being made
available for five properties, car free travel was encouraged and the
application should not add to parking stress in the area. |
|||||||||||||
20/05021/FUL - Land r/o 69 Green End Road 11am PDF 144 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of a two bedroom bungalow. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Shernbourne Court (written statement read by Committee
Manager): i.
Referred to previously submitted
comments and those of the majority of local residents consulted, who strongly
objected to the proposed planning application. ii.
This was an inappropriate
development of a garden and the destructive practice of 'garden grabbing'. The
proposed plans ignored the character of the neighbourhood by removing vital
green space. 69 Green End Road had already extended into the garden area and
reduced its garden size. Continuing to develop the vast majority of the garden
into another property was unacceptable. iii.
Would lead to an increase in
traffic on what is already a very busy cul-de-sac. iv.
Would cause poor/hazardous access
to Sherbourne Close/Court. With only one off-street parking space, it would
inevitably lead to an increase in on-street parking immediately outside the
property. The 'S' bend on this section of road made it difficult for two cars
to pass without parked vehicles. More vehicles parking here would be hazardous
and lead to poor access to Sherbourne Close/Court, especially for larger
vehicles including ambulances and delivery vans. Ambulances were regularly
called to the care home on Sherbourne Close, so quick and easy access was
crucial. v.
A further property on this street
would cause the area to become overdeveloped. Sherbourne Close/Court have been
built on and developed over the years and there is simply not the space to cram
in anymore buildings. It would destroy the quieter suburban environment that
attracts residents to live here. vi.
Would lead to an increase in noise
which would have a negative impact on the peaceful character of the
neighbourhood and on the quality of life of the local residents already living
here. vii.
It was inconsiderate that the
plans place the building so close to the border of 1 Sherbourne Court rather
than locating it proportionately between the landowner's current property and 1
Sherborne Court. Mr Rahman (Applicant) addressed the Committee
in support of the application. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation that informatives
be included: i.
the development should be M4(3) compliant (not
just M4(2)); ii.
the heating system should be adaptable to allow
a change to a non-fossil fuel source. The amendments were 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.
informatives included on the planning permission in
respect of: a. the
development should be M4(3)
compliant; b. the
heating system should be adaptable to allow a change to a non-fossil fuel
source. |
|||||||||||||
21/0499/TTPO - Newnham Mill 11:30am PDF 160 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for: i.
Willow T1, remove split
branch. ii.
Willows T1 and T2, reduce
crown by 10-11m, pruning back to secondary growth points.
iii.
T3 reduce crown by 9-10m, pruning
back to secondary growth points. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to accept the Officer recommendation and
grant consent for the tree works proposed. |
|||||||||||||
Local Validation List 12noon PDF 374 KB Appendix 1 & 2 to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Local Planning
Authorities (LPAs) were required to undertake a regular review of their
validation requirements for planning applications. It was necessary to ensure
that a validation list is in place and remains fit for purpose in the context
of changes to national legislation and Development Plan policies. The validation list should set out the level
of information required by the LPA to support a planning application. It should
explain clearly what plans and documents are required as part of a planning
application to ensure that the LPA can
make transparent, well informed and robust decisions on planning applications
in the public interest. Report recommendation: that the revised
Local Validation List should be adopted. The Committee: Resolved
(5 votes to 0) to accept the
Officer recommendation that the
revised Local Validation List should be adopted. Councillor Thornburrow abstained from voting
on this decision as she is the Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport. |