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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the 4th October 2017 were
agreed and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||
17/0995/S73 - 220 Milton Road PDF 142 KB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73
application to vary condition
number 2. The
application sought approval to vary condition number 2 (approval plans) of
permission reference 16/1591/FUL to increase the depth of the Union Lane wing
to create 2x 1 bed units at first floor in place of the approved 1x 2 bed unit
and reconfigure ground floor to create and additional car parking space. Peter McKeown, Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) to refuse the application to vary condition
2 in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the
officer report. |
|||||||
17/1484/OUT - Land Adjacent to Barnwell Lake PDF 277 KB
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
Outline Planning Permission. The application
sought approval for the erection of a cycle-themed café (A3 use) and shop along
with associated infrastructure including car and cycle parking and new internal
roads.
The Committee received a representation in support of the application
from Jim Chisholm. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Area was currently a neglected and underused space.
ii.
The Chisholm Trail development would significantly
change the character of the space and bring increased activity levels to
it. This includes the way in which
fishing club members will access the lake.
iii.
Whilst not necessarily against a Café on the site,
the scale of the application was excessive. Green belt land needed to be
protected in accordance with national policy.
iv.
Lake side café facilities are not unusual within
public green spaces.
v.
The proposal as it stands would have limited visual
impact.
vi.
Expressed concern regarding the A3 proposal which would allow a wide
range of uses within the same use class without the need for further planning
permission. vii.
Some of the outstanding issues could be addressed
by a future reserved matters application. viii.
The Committee acknowledged the case officer’s
advice that the present unmanaged condition of the land and presence of fly
tipping did not amount to very special circumstances. The Legal representative outlined the framework of exceptions allowed to
the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) restriction regarding development within the
Green Belt. This includes (para 89) provision of appropriate facilities for
outdoor recreation. The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager reminded members that,
approval of this application would require consultation with the Secretary of
State due to the green belt and flood risk issues according to the Consultation
Direction 2009. On a show of hands, 4 members indicated that they rejected the Officer’s
recommendation to refuse the application. The Chair proposed instigating the Adjourned Decision Protocol and asked
members to give their reasons for overturning the Officer’s recommendation. The
following reasons were proposed:
i.
Increased recreational use of green belt land
ii.
Overall net benefit to the community. The legal advisor suggested that more robust reasons regarding the
appropriateness of the development as exceptional development within the Green
Belt would be needed. Councillor
Nethsingha moved a motion deferring the decision on the grounds of insufficient
information. On a show of hands,
the motion was lost. The Chair stated
that considerable adjustments were needed to make the application acceptable. The New Neighbourhoods
Development Manager indicated that Members might wish to send a strong message
to the applicant to supplement the information provided in respect of
unresolved issues in the application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to adjourn the application to return to a subsequent
Committee in accordance with the adjourned decision protocol. |
|||||||
17/1225/FUL - 122-128 Newmarket Road, 2 and 5 Abbey Street PDF 245 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval
for the erection of a B1 (a) and B1 (b) office building with ancillary motion
capture studio at ground floor and external first floor terrace along with car
and cycle parking, electricity sub-station and associated infrastructure and a
ground floor Public House (use class A4) following the demolition of existing
buildings on site. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from Martin Lucas-Smith on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Had no view on the development.
ii.
Objected to double stacking cycle racks that were
unpopular with the public.
iii.
Requested the removal of some of the parking spaces
and replacing them with additional Sheffield Stand cycle racks.
iv.
Raised concerns that delivery vehicles would block
the road.
v.
Requested a conditions requiring delivery parking
within the curtilage of the site.
vi.
Suggested that the Road Traffic Order was needed to
ensure the area received double yellow lined. Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) and Nina Kristensen
(Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/0548/FUL - 60 Trumpington Road PDF 316 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of former restaurant,
with redevelopment of former site for the erection of 2x3 bedroom
and 1x2 bedroom detached linked dwellings; 1x2 bedroom apartment; associated
cycle and car parking provision and landscaping. The Senior Planner corrected a typographical error in paragraph 8.39 of
the Officer’s report: The very front of the proposed two-storey
mass would be situated approximately The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a North Cottages resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
North Cottages were 17 unique properties. ii.
The planning portal website was
off-line over the weekend of 28 – 29 October 2017. Late documents were added 31
October. This made it hard for objectors to refer to them. iii.
Suggested the site plan was
inaccurate. iv.
Issues from a previous application
had not been addressed: a.
Lack of green space. b.
Overbearing. c.
Overlooking and impact on
neighbour’s amenities in 1 North Cottage. d.
No assessment of the impact on
neighbour’s window. v.
Asked for the application to be
deferred until concerns raised had been addressed. Mr Kirby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor O’Connell (Trumpington Ward
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
She and residents agreed the site
could be developed into residences instead of a restaurant. ii.
Raised concerns about the plan as
submitted. a.
Overbearing and loss of light (ref
report paragraph 8.21).
i. Trumpington Road had mixed housing styles, Long Road was more built up.
ii. The
Planning Inspector had ruled against on-site development (ref report paragraph
8.50). b.
Outstanding objections had not
been addressed (ref report paragraphs 8.32 – 33). c.
Fire/emergency access and related
land ownership issues that impacted on access. d.
Asked for a condition stating
planning permission would not be granted until the Planning Officer was
satisfied that emergency vehicles could access the site. iii.
Asked for the application to be
deferred until all issues had been resolved. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. Councillor Nethsingha did not take part in the vote as she was not
present for the Officer’s introduction to this item. |
|||||||
17/1312/CL2PD - Citylife House, Sturton Street PDF 196 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness
under section 192 for the proposed use of the building for general educational
use falling within Use Class D1 (Non Residential Institutions) as defined by
the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from local residents. The representations covered the following issues: i.
The application process was long. ii.
Took issue with details of evidence
submitted regarding current dance school/studio use. Suggested this was not
credible. iii.
Suggested that the 2014 planning
consent as dance school/studio had not been implemented, therefore the 1997
permission was still the extant permission instead. a.
Expressed concern about the scale
of air conditioning equipment on the building. b.
Noise from the air conditioning
equipment was acceptable. c.
The revised location of the air
conditioning plant had been refused planning permission in a Section 73
application that was being appealed. iv.
Suggested the current application
should be deferred until the Section 73 appeal decision was known. Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The loss of a community dance
building to general education use was an important issue. ii.
Suggested the 1997 planning
permission was still in effect as the 2014 Section 73 application was still
being contested. iii.
Referred to Queen’s Counsel’s
advice on P252 of the Officer’s report. iv.
Change of use should not occur
until the Section 73 position was clarified. v.
A Certificate of Lawfulness could
not be issued without precise and unambiguous evidence from the Applicant. vi.
The Applicant needed to materially
demonstrate that at least 10% of the building was given over to dance
school/studio use. 30 – 40% was better. Under 10% was unacceptable. It was
unclear if the Applicant met the 10%+ criteria. vii.
Took issue with evidence submitted
by the Applicant that dance use was continuing at the date of application in
July 2017. Suggested this was not credible. viii.
Suggested the applicant had an
unfortunate history for cutting corners on applications. The Chair noted that an
error had occurred in the order of speaking as he had allowed the Ward
Councillor to speak before the Agent. The Chair invited the Agent to speak then
invited the Ward Councillor to speak again if he wished to respond to any of
the Agent’s points. Mr Grimbley (Applicant’s Agent)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Robertson (Petersfield
Ward Councillor) made the following points: i.
The building was used for
activities other than dance before 28 July 2017. ii.
Photographs submitted do not show what
activities people were doing. Specific evidence of dance use was needed. iii.
Re-iterated: a.
Evidence submitted was ambiguous
and needed to be clearer before a Certificate of Lawfulness could be issued. b.
Concern over loss of a community
facility. The Legal Advisor said the enforcement notice served in respect of the
alleged breach of condition regarding roof plant location was suspended while
it was being appealed therefore Members should not defer the application in
front of them to await the appeal outcome. The Committee had to consider the
evidence in the report against the criteria of “more likely than not” as
opposed to (the higher benchmark) “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to grant the
application for a Certificate of Lawfulness in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report. |
|||||||
17/1252/FUL - 12 Orchard Estate PDF 186 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The
application sought approval for a ground floor rear and side extension and
change of use to form three flats. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward
Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to paragraph 8.4 of the Officer’s report
which set out Policy 5/2 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) stated the
conversion of non-residential buildings into self-contained dwellings would be
permitted; and exceptions to this.
ii.
Suggested the development should not go ahead as it
does not overcome 2 of the exception criteria: a.
The likely impact upon on-street parking would be
unacceptable. The County Council Highways Authority had concerns about this. b.
The proposal would fail to provide for satisfactory
refuse bin storage or cycle parking. ·
Details regarding arrangements for the above should
be submitted before planning permission was granted.
iii.
The report was unclear which flat got the sole
parking space on-site.
iv.
Referred to the refusal decision given against an
application in Greville Road. It was pertinent to
this application. The Committee: Resolved (4 votes
to 4 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers, condition 11 to be
re-worded as follows: “The car parking space immediately adjacent to the living room window of
flat no.1 of the development hereby permitted shall be used solely by the
future occupants of flat no.1. The car parking space
shall be retained for use by the future occupants of flat no.1 unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To provide a high quality living
environment for future occupiers (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4 and 5/2).” |
|||||||
17/1354/FUL - 7 Derby Street PDF 134 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for change of use from A1 (Bakery and shop) to A1/A3
mixed use (bakery, shop and café). The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for
the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/1282/FUL - 339 Milton Road PDF 133 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for conversion and extension to create
four new flats and one studio apartment. The Planner corrected a typographical error in paragraph 8.23 of the
Officer’s report: The passage along the side of the house is narrow at The Planner updated planning conditions:
i.
An additional boundary treatment condition was
proposed in response to documents submitted 1 November 2017.
ii.
Referred to pre-committee amendments to the
recommendation on the amendment sheet: An additional condition and informative
regarding surface water drainage are recommended following comments from the
Sustainable Drainage Engineer. 17. No building hereby permitted shall be
occupied until details of surface water drainage works have been submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Surface water drainage
will be implemented in accordance with these agreed details. Reason: To ensure the development will not
increase flood risk in the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework (2012) 18. Informative: Before the details of the surface
water drainage are submitted, an assessment shall be carried out of the
potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage
system in accordance with the principles set out in The National Planning
Policy Framework and associated Guidance, and the results of the assessment
provided to the local planning authority. The system should be designed such
that there is no surcharging for a 1 in 30 year event and no internal property
flooding for a 1 in 100 year event + 40% an allowance for climate change. The
submitted details shall: i. provide
information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to
delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures
taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
and ii. provide a
management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. iii. The surface water drainage scheme shall
be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed details and management
and maintenance plan. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Milton Road. The representation covered the following concerns: i.
Conversion of attractive family
home into flats that would only be suitable for single people. ii.
Lack of amenity space. iii.
Passageway access. iv.
Glass screens on building not
in-keeping with character of area. v.
Noise from building terraces would
disturb neighbours. vi.
Plans did not make appropriate use
of space. 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 report, and subject to
the amended conditions recommended by the officers, with an additional
condition relating to hard and soft landscaping to front boundary. See boundary
condition wording below: 18. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and
soft landscape works for the area to the front, including front boundary, have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and
these works shall be carried out as approved. These details include proposed
finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts, other
vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation area; hard surface materials;
minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play
equi8pment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and
existing functional services above ground level (eg
drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes,
supports); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration,
where relevant. Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with
plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant size
and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation
programme. The works shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the
approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable
hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12). |
|||||||
17/1229/FUL - 2 Madras Road PDF 121 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing rear shed and
construction of a bike store, ground floor extension, first floor extension, attic
conversion incorporating rear dormers and installation of emergency exit door
to side elevation. The Planner referred to the amendment sheet which stated there was an
error in paragraph 8.9 of the Officer’s report which gives an incorrect
measurement for the depth of the first floor extension. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Madras Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
The first floor extension would
block the neighbour’s view; plus create a sense of enclosure and loss of light. ii.
Expected noise nuisance from the
side alley which acted as the access route to the rear property units. iii.
Queried bin storage arrangements. Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Much of Romsey housing was Victorian back to back
houses with little amenity space.
ii.
Asked the Planning Committee to consider the need
for accommodation as well as appropriate amenity space for modern housing.
iii.
Back garden developments could lead to a loss of
open space due to buildings, bin and bike storage.
iv.
The proposed building and courtyard would be in
front of the existing neighbour’s window.
v.
Queried if the 1 proposed kitchen was
sufficient/suitable facility for potentially 12 people who could occupy the
building as a House in Multiple Occupation.
vi.
Queried if the kitchen emergency exit was
appropriate. vii.
The units would be approached from the rear of the
property. This was unusual and unsatisfactory. viii.
The development would impact on its own occupants’
and neighbours’ amenities: a.
Noise. b.
Smell. c.
Overdevelopment of site in an already crowded area. d.
Pollution. e.
Loss of privacy.
ix.
The development would exacerbate existing traffic flow
and parking issues.
x.
Queried if appropriate bin and cycle storage would
be provided. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/1579/FUL - 124 Whitehill Road PDF 86 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a pergola. 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 report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. Councillor Nethsingha left the meeting for another commitment after the vote on this item. |
|||||||
17/1249/FUL - 178 Coldhams Lane PDF 145 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for change of use from single Use Class dwellinghouse to 2 self-contained dwellings and associated
enlargements to dwelling including ground and first floor rear extension along with
associated hardstanding, amenity space, and parking. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the
conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/1299/FUL - 63 Ditton Walk PDF 171 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of 2no self-contained
flats and 1no duplex. The Senior Planner referred to a pre-Committee amendment to the
recommendation set out on the amendment sheet: Condition 21 should be re-worded as follows: “The
rear amenity space shall be laid out in accordance with the approved drawing
no. P-1-02 Rev C and retained thereafter. Reason:
To provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupants (Cambridge
Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12).” The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the amended
conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/1444/S73 - 2 Barrow Road PDF 130 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a Section 73 application to vary condition 1 of planning permission
15/0804/FUL dated 04/11/2015. The application
sought approval to vary condition 1 of planning permission 15/0804/FUL dated 04/11/2015
for new dwelling to rear of site with access from Trumpington
Road to allow the removal of the basement pool, extension to form bedroom at
first floor level and alterations to fenestration. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Trumpington Road. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Felt that objections had not been
heard in the manner she expected. ii.
People wanted to develop sites in
Cambridge. iii.
Took issue with the site plans. iv.
The Applicant was saving visual
and space amenity for themselves at the expense of the
Objector who would lose privacy. This was an area of concern, not the
development of the site. v.
Took issue with fenestration on
the development and overlooking from it into the Objector’s son’s bedroom. vi.
Asked for the proposed property to
be moved 20m from the boundary. Mr Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the Section
73 application in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons
set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
|||||||
17/1447/FUL - 58 Harvey Goodwin Avenue PDF 119 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of a single-storey dwelling on land to the rear of
no.58 Harvey Goodwin Avenue The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
17/0792/FUL - 23 Baldock Way PDF 151 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of
a detached three bedroom residential unit. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|||||||
Enforcement - EN/0017/17 - 146 Mowbray Road PDF 176 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an amended version of the report previously seen at October 2017
committee whereby recommendations were subsequently unanimously approved by
members. In the interest of planning clarity the correct version of the report
was re-submitted for Members’ approval at November 2017 committee. The Enforcement
Officer recommended serving one Breach of Condition Enforcement Notice and one
Breach of Condition Notice directed at remedying the harm caused as a result of
the breach occurring. The breaches result in an unauthorised additional
separate unit of accommodation being created and the recommendation looks to
ensure compliance in the short term and onwards. The Planning Enforcement Officer amended details in his report
recommendations to correct job titles: (ii) To authorise
the Director of Planning and Economic Development the Head of Legal (iii) To delegate
authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development
the Head of Legal The Committee: Unanimously
resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept
the officer recommendation to:
i.
Authorise an enforcement notice under S172 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a breach
of planning control within the last ten years, involving the breaches of
conditions 2 & 3 of planning permission ref: 14/1143/FUL, specifying the
steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3
of the Officer’s report, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.4.
ii.
Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic
Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to draft and
issue the enforcement notice.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and
Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to
exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of
noncompliance with the enforcement notice. |