Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received
from Councillor Marchant-Daisley |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Members
are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of
the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they
should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek
advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 May 2012. The minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2012 will be approved at a future meeting. Minutes: The minutes of the 2 May 2012 meeting were
approved and signed as a correct record. The minutes of the meeting
held on 30 May 2012 will be approved at a future meeting. |
||||||||||
11/0338/FUL: Intercell House, 1 Coldhams Lane PDF 2 MB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The Principal Planning Officer said that condition 2 of his report
omitted the following text shown in capital letters: No development shall commence
until such time as details at a scale of 1:20 (including plans, elevations and
sections of in THE BUILDING) have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details. The application sought approval for Redevelopment of Intercell House as a 127 bed
hotel with restaurant and bar, car park and works to the Public Realm/Highway
following demolition of Intercell House. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Ms Gilbert (on
behalf of Riverside Area Residents Association, Petersfield Area Community
Trust, plus Brunswick & North Kite Residents Association). The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
Residents
welcomed redevelopment in the area, but had concerns regarding the scale and
mix of the development. (ii)
The
application was the second proposed hotel development in the area in 18 months.
The application would put too many hotel rooms in one place. This would
exacerbate traffic flow issues on a busy junction. Residents took issue with
the Highways Authority comments in the Officer’s report that the development
would have little impact on traffic levels. Residents felt this overlooked the
cumulative impact on local roads. (iii)
Suggested
little traffic modelling had been undertaken, and this did not take into
account cyclist needs. (iv)
Referred to
Design & Conservation Panel comments that a smaller development would be
more appropriate for the site. (v)
Suggested the application
infringed Local Plan policy 6/3 concerning tourist accomodation. Mr Mann (Applicant’s Agent)
addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Mr Hughes (Service Director, Growth & Infrastructure) addressed the
Committee to clarify County Council comments concerning the application. (i)
Traffic modelling had been undertaken. This projected that Saturday
would generate the highest levels of traffic. The impact of this would be very
low, and so was not a reason for refusal. (ii)
It was a fundamental modelling principle to compare current (ie usage
planning permission has been granted for) and future usage. (iii)
All 3 proposed Coldhams Lane developments should lead to just a 4%
increase in traffic on the road. Even if all traffic from the three developments
proposed (hotel at 180-190 Newmarket Road, residential development at 9-15
Harvest Way, and the present application) were to access and leave the site via
Coldham’s Lane, which is a very unlikely scenario, the total increase in
traffic on this section of Coldham’s Lane during the peak hour of Saturday
afternoon would be no more than 4%. (iv)
The junction can cope with expected future traffic levels as modelled. (v)
A significant funding contribution would be generated for the Eastern
Corridor Transport Fund if the application went ahead. This would be considered
by the East Area Committee. Councillor Blencowe
proposed an amendment that a considerate
construction condition should be included. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Blencowe
proposed an amendment that a condition to
mitigate dust and mud should be included. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved
(by 6 votes to 1) to accept
the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the
agenda and the following further amendments and additions: 1. In
Condition 2, delete the words ‘of IN’ within the brackets. Text to read “No development shall commence until such time as
details at a scale of 1:20 (including plans, elevations and sections of 2. Add
Condition 18: No development (including demolition) shall take place until
details of measures to prevent the spread of airborne dust and mud have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
approved measures shall be maintained throughout the demolition and
construction phases. Reason:
To protect the amenity of nearby residents, businesses, allotment-holders and
road users. (Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 4/13 and 8/2) 3. Add
additional INFORMATIVE: New development
can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local
residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a
Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during
construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through
its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model
Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information
about the scheme can be obtained from The Considerate Contractor Project
Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121). 4. Additional resolution: AUTHORITY to officers to discharge Condition 3 is
limited in the following manner. Officers are required to notify all members of
Committee when the sample panel is installed. Officers have AUTHORITY to
discharge condition 3 only if no member requests, within 21 days of the date of
notification of the sample panel, that the acceptability of the panel be
brought to Committee for determination. Reasons for Approval 1. This development has been approved subject to conditions and
the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral
undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform
to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies: East of England plan 2008:
policies SS1, T1, T2, T9, T14, ENV7, ENG1; Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: policies P6/1, P9/8, P9/9; Cambridge Local Plan
(2006): policies 3/1, 3/4, 3/6, 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 3/13, 4/4, 4/13,
4/14, 6/3, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/6, 8/8, 8/9, 8/10, 8/16 and 10/1; 2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other
material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of
such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission. These reasons for approval can be a summary of the
reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the
decision please see the officer report online at
www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre,
Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to
Friday. |
||||||||||
Re-Ordering Agenda Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda. |
||||||||||
12/0489/FUL: Former Cambridge College For Further Education, 23 Young Street PDF 4 MB Minutes: Councillor Dryden withdrew from the meeting for this
item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making. The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for construction of three new buildings within Use
Class D1 for non-residential educational and training use, following demolition
of all buildings on the site except the Ragged School. Mr Bennet (Applicant’s representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Stuart
proposed an amendment to condition 18 concerning demolition. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 6
votes to 0) to accept the
officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda
and subject to the amendment of the Construction Management Plan condition to include
consideration of the Nursery during the demolition of the existing buildings on
site. Reasons for Approval 1. This development has been approved subject to conditions and
the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation, because subject to
those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a
whole, particularly the following policies: East of England plan 2008:
ENV6, ENV7, CSR1, CSR2 Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1, P9/8, P9/9 Cambridge Local Plan
(2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 4/11, 4/12, 4/13, 4/14, 4/16, 5/10,
5/12, 5/15, 7/1, 7/2, 7/4, 7/8, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6, 8/16, 8/18, 10/1 2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other
material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of
such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission. These reasons for approval can be a summary of the
reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision
please see the officer report online at
www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre,
Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to
Friday. Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head
of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee
to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in
connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by
26 September 2012, or if Committee determine that the application be refused
against officer recommendation of approval, it is recommended that the
application be refused for the following reason(s): The proposed development
does not make appropriate provision for, transport mitigation measures, public
realm improvements, public art and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/12, 8/3 and 10/1, Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the
Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning
Document 2010. |
||||||||||
12/0321/FUL: 190-192 Histon Road PDF 2 MB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for proposed erection of 14 apartments (following the
demolition of existing buildings) comprising 2 studio apartments, 11 x 1 bed
flats and 1 x 2 bed flats along with cycle parking and hard and soft
landscaping The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Dr Spencer-Thomas (on
behalf of Windsor Road Residents Association Committee). The representation covered
the following issues: (i)
Expressed
concern over lack of on-street parking. This would exacerbate existing traffic
flow and parking issues. (ii)
The greatest
demand for parking was at night and the weekend. A survey has not been
undertaken to test the impact of commuters on travel plan arrangements. (iii)
Took issue
with figures used to claim car journeys would be reduced. Mr Brown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Todd-Jones (Arbury
Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application. (i)
The current design was an improvement over previous iterations.
Residents had raised no objections to Councillor Todd-Jones. (ii)
A car free development was a good intention, but it was likely that
residents would own cars and that they would park off site. This would
exacerbate current traffic flow and parking issues. (iii)
The Highways Authority had raised some concerns, but no specific
objections. (iv)
The nearest street car facility is 10 minutes walk from the application
site. This may deter usage. (v)
Conditions maybe required to manage Histon Road noise levels. (vi)
Queried if the side gate was now level with the Histon Road frontage. (vii)
Queried if noise reduction features (acoustic glaze panels) could be
fitted to upper floor terraces. (viii)
Referred to Design & Conservation Panel comments. Councillor Ward (Arbury
Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application. (i)
Residents welcomed redevelopment of the site. (ii)
Re-iterated residents had traffic flow and parking concerns. It was
hoped the development would not exacerbate these. The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to accept the
officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda,
subject to Section 106 agreement, to be completed by 30th September
2012. Reasons for Approval 1. This development has been approved subject to conditions and
the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral
undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform
to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies: East of England plan 2008:
ENV6 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: 6/1, 9/8 and 9/9 Cambridge Local Plan
(2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 3/12, 4/4, 4/13, 5/1, 5/14, 8/2, 8/6, 8/10
& 8/16 2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other
material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of
such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission. These reasons for approval can be a summary of the
reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the
decision please see the officer report online at
www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre,
Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to
Friday. Unless prior agreement has been obtained from the Head
of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of this Committee
to extend the period for completion of the Planning Obligation required in
connection with this development, if the Obligation has not been completed by
30th September 2012, or
if Committee determine that the application be refused against officer recommendation
of approval, it is recommended that the application be refused for the
following reason(s): The proposed development
does not make appropriate provision for public open space, community
development facilities, life-long learning facilities, public art, waste
facilities, waste management and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local
Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/5, 5/14, and 10/1of the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1 and P9/8 and as detailed in the
Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning
Document 2010, the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and
Implementation 2010 and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership
(RECAP): Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012. |
||||||||||
General Items |
||||||||||
11/0219/FUL: 9-15 Harvest Way PDF 37 KB Minutes: The Committee received a request to confirm
the decision made at the meeting of 16th November
2011, to grant planning permission for the proposal made under 11/0219/FUL. The application sought confirmation
of previous resolution to grant planning permission for 75 residential
apartments, including 30 affordable units, 174m2 of commercial space at ground
floor level to be used for A1, A2, B1(a) or D1 (in the alternative), and
associated infrastructure, at 9-15 Harvest Way (application number 11/0219/FUL) The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation to confirm
the decision, made at the Planning Committee meeting of 16th November 2011, to grant planning permission for the
proposal made under 11/0219/FUL, subject to conditions, and subject to the
completion of a Section 106 agreement by 17th August 2012. |
||||||||||
CB1 Blue Phase Brick Sample Panel PDF 29 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a request to discharge CB1 Blue Phase (Blocks L1 to L4). The application sought approval that condition
9 is discharged on the basis of the use of Freshfield Lane Dark Facings brick
with natural buff mortar in the sample panel erected on site in May 2012. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation that Condition
9 is discharged on the basis of the use of Freshfield Lane Dark Facings brick
with natural buff mortar in the sample panel erected on site in May 2012. |