Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

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.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Saunders	12/41/PLANa & b	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present & Future
Councillor Saunders	12/41/PLANa & b	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign

 

Councillor Brown stated that because her house was located near to applications 12/41/PLANa & b, she had sought advise from the Head of Legal; and been informed that she had no prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2012 (to follow).

The minutes of the 27 June 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of 32-38 Station Road and the construction of two new office buildings comprising 7806 sq.m. office floorspace (class B1) for 50 Station Road and 8621 sq.m. office floorspace (class B1) and 271 sq.m. of retail/cafe and restaurant floorspace (class A1/A3) for 60 Station Road as a phased development, including ancillary accommodation/facilities with an additional single level basement to both buildings and up to 61 car parking spaces, with associated plant; along with the re-alignment of the northern section of the southern access road; 432 external cycle parking spaces; and hard and soft landscape (including additional public realm and landscaping over the cycle storage area and basement entrance).

 

Public speaker representations for all four of the CB1-related items were taken at once, in order to ensure smooth flow from one item to another. The four items were 12/0502/FUL 32 - 38 Station Road, 12/0496/CAC 32 - 38 Station Road, Non Material Amendment for Southern Access Road (CB1) and Discharge of Condition 48 of Outline Planning Consent ref. 08/0266/OUT (CB1 Masterplan).

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

 

·        Mr Clifton (representing Brooklands Avenue Area Residents Association, Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents Association, plus the Residents Associations in Highsett and Rustat Road)

·        Mr Campbell-Bannerman (Member of the European Parliament)

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

(i)                The full planning application being considered by Committee today was not bound by the recommendation in outline planning permission to demolish Wilton Terrace. The demolition proposal was not part of the wider CB1 Master Plan. Suggested the developer was selective about which old buildings were retained (eg Old Mill) or demolished.

(ii)              Expressed concern regarding the demolition of Wilton Terrace as these were buildings of local interest. Suggested this breached City Environment Policies 6 and 7, plus Heritage Policy 131.

(iii)            Station Road was the gateway to the historic City of Cambridge. The Terrace were Victorian in style, whereas (more modern) surrounding buildings were unattractive.

(iv)            Expressed concern regarding traffic flow and parking. Parking provision in the planning application was less than what was originally proposed, but the building would be bigger.

(v)              Brookgate were requested to investigate a pedestrian/cycle link from the application site to the adjoining leisure centre multistory car park.

 

Mr Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) and Mr Sidor (Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Brown proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that 10% onsite renewable energy generation should be required under Planning Policy 8/16.

 

This amendment was carried by 7 votes to 0.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Chair decided that the reasons for refusal should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

 

1       The proposed building by virtue of its overall scale and massing would have an overly dominant impact on the Station Road frontage to the detriment of the streetscene and the Conservation Area contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

 

2       The development fails to make adequate provision for car parking which would be likely to result in overspill parking into nearby residential areas, which would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents of those areas.  The development is therefore contrary to policy 8/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

 

3       The public benefit arising from the development fails to provide sufficient justification for the demolition of Buildings of Local Interest, which are recognised as heritage assets. The development is therefore contrary to policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

 

4       The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for transport mitigation measures/infrastructure provision, mitigation of potential for overspill parking, the funding and agreement of the a Travel Plan Co-Ordinator, public art, relocation of a community facility, restriction on occupation of offices and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 5/11, 7/2, 8/2, 8/3, 9/9 and 10/1, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 policies P6/1, P9/8 and P9/9 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010, the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document 2010 and the Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan 2002.

 

The Committee also unanimously agreed that in the event that an Appeal is lodged against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority is given to allow officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligation required in connection with this development.

 

The Committee voted on, but rejected the following reasons for refusal contrary to the officer recommendations.

 

1       The application did not meet requirements for Planning Policy 8/16 Renewable Energy for Major New Developments.

 

This reason was lost by 2 votes to 1.

 

2       Loss of community facility (Planning Policy 5/11 Protection of Existing Facilities).

 

This reason was lost by 4 votes to 2.

The Committee received an application for Conservation Area Consent.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of 32-38 Station Road.

 

Public speaker representations are listed under minute item 12/41/PLANa.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

1       The proposed demolition is contrary to policies 4/11 and 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, in that in the absence of an approved redevelopment scheme that has a contract for redevelopment and which preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area by faithfully reflecting its context or providing a contrast with it, the demolition of the buildings would result in the loss of a heritage asset in the form of Buildings of Local Interest which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

2       The public benefit arising from the development fails to provide sufficient justification for the demolition of Buildings of Local Interest, which are recognised as heritage assets. The development is therefore contrary to policy 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee received an application for non-material amendments to CB1 Station Area Southern Access Road.

 

The application sought approval that the changes to parameter plans 3 to 9 and drawing no. 217382/EAD/SK1020 Rev P10 (approved access plan) be approved as non-material amendments to the approved parameter plans.

 

Public speaker representations are listed under minute item 12/41/PLANa.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (6 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to approve the changes to parameter plans 3 to 9 and drawing no. 217382/EAD/SK1020 Rev P10 (approved access plan) as non-material amendments to the approved parameter plans.

The Committee received a request to discharge strategic planning condition 48 – detailed scheme for alterations to the Station Road/Southern Access Road junction.

 

The application sought approval:

(i)                To discharge condition 48 of outline planning permission 08/0266/OUT.

(ii)              That delegated authority be given to officers to agree an alternative timetable for delivery of the works should such a request is made.

 

Public speaker representations are listed under minute item 12/41/PLANa.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation to discharge condition 48 of outline planning permission 08/0266/OUT and delegate authority to officers to agree an alternative timetable for delivery of the works should such a request is made.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Change of the use from offices (Class B1) to managed hall of residence for 261 students (use class C2).

 

Dr Savage (Principal at CATS College) and Mr Bond (Old Chesterton Resident’s Association) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 - unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda.

 

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: CSR1, SS1, SS2, T9, T14, ENV3, ENV7, WM6

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1, P9/8, P9/9

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/11, 4/4, 4/13, 5/7, 7/10, 8/2, 8/3, 8/5, 8/6, 8/16, 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 17 October 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:

 

The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space, public art, travel plan, occupation and temporary use restrictions and monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/8, 3/12, 5/5, 5/7, 7/10, 5/14, 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, the Open Space Standards Guidance for Interpretation and Implementation 2010.

The Committee received a request for variation of the Section 106 wording to secure wider public access.

 

The application sought approval to vary the original Section 106 (S106) agreement (C/97/0961/OP), between the applicant and the local authority, in respect of public access to the sports centre on the site.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to approve variation of the section 106 wording to secure wider public access:

 

(i)                As set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Officer’s report, variation to the S106 for this wording shown in bold: “Prior to use of any sports facilities to agree with the Council times at which the public may have access to sports facilities.”

(ii)              Any associated variations required to definitions etc. within the agreement to be consistent.

(iii)            Subject to the granting of approval by the Joint Development Control Committee of planning applications C/11/1114/OUT and S/1886/11.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

The Planning Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

 

The Committee received a report concerning proposed erection of 7 x 5 bed houses, internal access road, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping at St Colette’s Preparatory School planning application refused at Planning Committee on 4 April 2012. An appeal has been lodged against this decision.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 - unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation to amend the Council’s case at appeal in line with the Officer’s recommendations.

The Committee received an application to fell a Horse Chestnut in the garden of Denmore Lodge, Brunswick Gardens, protected by its location within a Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the Horse Chestnut tree could be replaced with a Himalayan Birch or another native British tree.

 

This amendment was carried by 6 votes to 0 - unanimously.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the Horse Chestnut tree could be replaced with a suitable replacement to be agreed by the Arboriculltural Officer.

 

This amendment was carried by 6 votes to 0 - unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 - unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation and offer no objection to the removal of the Horse Chestnut tree and its replacement with the Himalayan Birch or another tree as recommended by the Arboricultural Officer.