Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden, Councillor Griffin and Councillor Smart

Councillor Thornburrow took the Chair for the duration of the meeting.

Councillor Illingworth proposed and Councillor Todd-Jones seconded Councillor Porrer as Vice Chair for this committee meeting. This was unanimously agreed.

No interests were declared.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2026 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee minutes list public speakers at Committee. Please view the recording of the meeting on Cambridge City Council - YouTube to see/hear more detail about statements from public speakers and Ward Councillors.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of an existing commercial greenhouse, erection of a 1.5 storey, four-bedroom self-build dwelling together with 2 No. new parking spaces for the proposed dwelling (with EV charging), repurposing of shared private drive between 80 and 82 Lovell Road, new vehicle turning head enabling forward-gear exit, relocated entrances for 80 and 82 Lovell Road to the front of the properties, new dropped kerb for 82 Lovell Road driveway, retention of one parking space each for 80 and 82 Lovell Road (accessed from Lovell Road) and planting a new line of trees to improve shielding of views of the Science Park together with Enhanced landscaping including native hedgerows, addition of biodiversity enhancements, including provision for protected species.

A resident of Lovell Road addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.

The Applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Gawthrope Wood addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application and concluded by asking the Committee to refuse the application. 

The Committee:

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted), subject to:

      i.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

    ii.         S106 unilateral undertaking to secure self-build status and monitoring costs:

   iii.         delegated authority to Officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional conditions:

a.    Removal of Class A permitted development rights.

b.    Removal of ability to change from a dwelling house to a Class C4 house of multiple occupation.

c.    Control the curtilage of the proposed dwelling to ensure it is maintained in perpetuity.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a car port to the front of the dwelling.

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 make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted) including an informative to request that the applicant consider a permeable form of surface treatment.

The Committee received a S73 application to vary condition 2 (approved drawings) of ref: 24/00973/FUL (Construction of 4 No. dwellings (comprising 4 x 3-bed units) including demolition of existing garages, widening of existing access from Paget Road and associated landscaping) showing changes to car and cycle parking layout, relocated bin store and H bar marking across the entrance.

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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted), subject to:

i.      delegated authority to Officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to consider whether it is necessary to amend the following condition:

a.    Condition 13 relating to hard and soft landscaping to discourage parking in the turning head.

ii.     informatives included on the planning permission in respect of:

b.    additional cycle parking for visitors;

c.    County Council Highways were considering that the current proposed H bar was not suitable to restrict parking;

d.    waste management and encouraging residents to return bins to allocated storage spaces.

The Committee noted the appeals list.

Hughes Hall is preparing a masterplan for college campus.  The first phase involves the demolition of an unlisted part of the Margaret Wileman Building, construction of new buildings and extensions to existing buildings on site to house up to 120 ensuite rooms plus social spaces, meeting rooms and Fellows' accommodation, an innovation centre and offices with associated works and landscaping.

The Delivery Officer updated the description of the pre-application briefing from that published on the agenda as follows:

The presentation would be to update Members on evolving proposals for the redevelopment of the Hughes Hall site, including proposals for a new Porter’s Lodge building, the erection of a new block comprised of student rooms to the rear of the Fenner’s building, the redevelopment of Wileman Court for student rooms, teaching and meeting spaces, landscaping, cycle parking, and a site-wide energy strategy.

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments from Officers but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments are binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

1.    Could a site-wide water strategy be considered? There could be an opportunity to look at existing and not just new buildings. Look at ways to take rainwater out of the wastewater system.

2.    Alongside air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels, would the site use batteries as an important part of decarbonization?

3.    Could you explain more about the plans to provide community access to the open space?

4.    Could you aim for BREEAM outstanding rather than excellent?

5.    Once new onsite accommodation was built, would any offsite homes no longer required for student accommodation be released onto the market?

6.    Regarding the proposed glazing in student accommodation, reassurance should be provided that the rooms would not be dark.

7.    The massing of the Porter’s Lodge is substantial and concerns were raised about the way it would interact with other buildings. What was the rationale for the blocky chimneys?

8.    Could the developer provide more detail on how they had addressed the concerns of local residents with regard to views?

9.    How would the developer ameliorate the impact on residents of Covent Garden?

10.                  Were the developers looking to use more protected open space?

11.                  Could materials be chosen that were sympathetic to existing buildings?

12.                  Had the developer considered the current position of Anglian Water in relation to increases in foul water discharge?

13.                  What were the future plans for access to Fenner’s?

14.                  How would the developer continue to engage with local stakeholders?