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
Note: Please note Agenda Item 5 (17/1614/FUL) has been withdrawn from this committee
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Nethsingha. The alternate councillor was unable to attend. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No interests were declared. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the 1st November 2017 were agreed and signed as a correct record. It was noted the application 17/0548/FUL at minute 17/180/Plan was before the committee again today and therefore it was recorded in the minutes of this meeting. |
|
17/0974/FUL - 18 Chesterton Road PDF 233 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the proposed erection of a mixed use scheme comprising 13 flats and 2 retail units following demolition of existing buildings at 18, 18a, 18b and 18c Chesterton Road, Cambridge. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Riverside Court representing residents of a number of
properties in Riverside Court. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Appreciated the Officer’s
recommendation of refusal. ii.
Proposal would impact on Riverside
Cottages. iii.
Would result in a sense on
enclosure. iv.
Would cause overlooking. v.
Scale and mass were inappropriate. vi.
Loss of trees. vii.
Potential root damage from
replacement trees. viii.
Problems of surface water drainage
in runoff water being directed towards Riverside Court. ix.
Impact on access routes. x.
Conditions regarding window treatments
such as obscure glazing would be hard to police in future. Garth Hanlon the Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Sargent
(West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application as
follows:
i.
The Council has an opportunity to improve the area
around Mitcham’s Corner.
ii.
Previous inappropriate application had been
rejected in this area.
iii.
This application would be overdevelopment. iv.
The Emerging Local Plan offers opportunities to
create a strong regional identity in this location.
v.
Design was poor. vi.
Important views from Jesus Green would be lost. vii.
Progress in the area was to be welcomed but it
needed to be protected progress. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to refuse the application for planning
permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set
out in the officer report. |
|
17/1527/FUL - 213 Mill Road PDF 274 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for residential led mixed use development with a retail unit. 14 Residential units comprising three 3xbed terrace dwellings, five 2xbed mews units, three 2xbed flats and three 1xbed flats along with access, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings on site. The Committee noted the clarification on cycle parking
detailed in the amendment sheet. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions) 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. |
|
17/1349/FUL - Brookfields Hospital, 351 Mill Road PDF 155 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a proposed car parking scheme to provide an additional 53 car parking spaces (including additional disability spaces) and an additional 20 cycle spaces. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Chair corrected the text of the amendment sheet as follow (words in bold added). “While I am not
able to support the proposal due to the loss of trees and the amenity space
required for replacement planting, if the scheme is otherwise acceptable, the arboricultural objection alone is insufficient to justify a recommendation of refusal.” 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. |
|
Change to Meeting Chair Vice Chair Councillor Smart took the Chair for the Consideration of application 17/1527/FUL. Councillor Hipkin was not present for the consideration of this application. |
|
17/0548/FUL - 60 Trumpington Road PDF 314 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. Planning Committee considered this application at the meeting of 1 November 2017 and resolved to accept the officer recommendation. Planning permission has not been issued in the light of concerns raised by a local resident. The purpose of bringing the item back to Committee is to enable the resident to address the Committee again but with the benefit of reference to annotated plans. The agent/applicant had been advised of this course of action and had been invited to address the Committee in the interests of fairness. The application sought approval for the demolition of former
restaurant, with redevelopment of the site for the erection of 2x3 bedroom and
1x2 bedroom detached linked dwellings; 1x2 bedroom apartment; 2x1 bedroom
apartments; associated cycle and car parking provision and landscaping The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from the resident of North Cottages who had also spoken in objection on the 1
November. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
North
Cottages were 17 unique properties.
ii.
The application encroached on land belonging to the
owners of the cottages.
iii.
Suggested the site plan was inaccurate.
iv.
Raised concern about fire risk, stated– ‘There
should be suitable access for a pump appliance to all existing dwellings on
North Cottages and the existing access to the lane should not be made worse’.
The comments from the Fire and Rescue Team sent to Mr Hammond had not been
uploaded online.
v.
Highlighted ‘The developer had declared he does not
own any part of North Cottages but noted that the owner of North Cottages has
not counter signed the application when it was submitted. Another planning
officer at the council explained if the correct certificate had not been
signed, or if certificate D had not been signed but no notice correctly served
the Council would invalidate the application and would not consider the
application until it had been made valid’
vi.
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. vii.
Stated that a complaint would be made to the
ombudsman if this application was granted Mr Kirby (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) 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. |
|
Change of Meeting Chair Councillor Hipkin resumed his position as Chair of the meeting |
|
17/1625/FUL - 83 Lovell Road PDF 137 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a change of use from single
C3 Use Class dwelling house to 2 self-contained 1 bedroom flats and 1
self-contained 2 bedroom flat. Single storey rear extension,
roof extension incorporating rear dormer, and Juliet balcony at first floor.
Associated hardstanding’s, amenity space, and parking. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Lovell Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Objected to the change of use from
a family home in to a number of smaller dwellings. Affirmed that this would set
a precedent in the area. ii.
Highlighted the demand for family
homes in the area and raised concern that this proposal provided the opposite
type of dwelling needed. iii.
Stated that the proposal would
increase demand for parking. iv.
The noise implications would have
a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighbours. v.
Rubbish regularly blew off this
site onto surrounding neighbours property, raised concern that this issue would
worsen if the proposal was approved. Councillor Gawthrope (Kings Hedges Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application.
i.
Highlighted that the application would cause the
loss of amenity space.
ii.
Stated that Cambridge North Station had already
caused parking issues in the area and this application would contribute further
to the problem.
iii.
Raised concern that the proposed Juliet Balcony at
the rear of the property would overlook property numbers 81 and 85. iv.
In a street of family homes this kind of
development would set a precedent which was not in keeping with the area, the
risk of overdevelopment needed to be taken seriously. 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. |
|
17/0898/FUL - 111 Grantchester Meadows PDF 135 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the extension of the garage roof
including installation of solar panels. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Grantchester Meadows. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Stated that he had raised an
objection when the application had previously come to committee in August 2017,
referred to the objections in section 7 of the Officer’s report. ii.
Highlighted that the applicant had
not considered the advice previously given, to use solar panels which looked
more like slates rather than the standard solar panels. iii.
Raised concern that the proposal
design was not in keeping with the Conservation Area. Councillor Cantrill
(Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.
i.
Stated that he supported the use of solar panels
but felt that the proposed product, the standard design solar panel was not in
keeping with the Conservation Area and rural surround.
ii.
Highlighted that the position of the building was
fundamentally important to the objection, because it meant that the panels
could be seen whilst walking the entire length of South Green Road.
Additionally, due to the size of the proposed panelling it would dominate the
street scene. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. The Committee adjourned at 14:15 to consider
the appropriate text necessary to express the reason for refusing the application The committee
reconvened at 14:20 Resolved (by 6
votes to 0) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: Due to the extent
and monotonous appearance of the proposed solar panels on the south-facing roof
slope of the building, the development would have a harmful visual impact in
the street and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 3/7,
3/14 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006. |
|
17/1164/FUL - 11 Chedworth Street PDF 131 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a ground floor extension to the side
and rear. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Stated that the proposal was
overbearing but the excessive height could be overcome by using alternative
materials. ii.
Confirmed that the owners of the neighbouring
property had indicated that if this application was successful, they too would
consider building a similar extension. Highlighted how it would set a precedent
for the area which needed to be considered. iii.
Many plants, shrubs and an apple
tree would be damaged or lost due to the building work. Helene Kotter (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Cantrill
(Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.
i.
Recognised the changes made by the applicant to
address the issues previously raised about the proposal being overbearing.
ii.
Stated that the changes alleviated the impact on
neighbouring property number 9 but it did not address the issues for the other
neighbouring property, number 13. As such, he was still not sufficiently happy
to approve the application. 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. |
|
17/1614/FUL - Withdrawn from agenda PDF 184 KB Minutes: This item was withdrawn from the agenda before reaching Committee. |
|
17/1624/FUL - 1-2 Purbeck Road PDF 132 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the conversion and extension
of existing dwellings to provide 10 new student rooms. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a resident of Mill Road. The representation covered the following issues: i.
She had no objection to a new
development on this site but she did object to the current application being
submitted. ii.
Stated that the applicant had
previously applied, and was subsequently granted planning permission to provide
affordable homes on the site. However, the latest application sought to build
student accommodation instead. iii.
Highlighted the demand for
affordable housing in Cambridge. iv.
Affirmed that this proposal would also
mean the loss of developable housing stock. v.
Stated that approving this
application would set a precedent and send a message to developers who could
also do the same thing. 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. The Committee took
a break at 14:45 |
|
17/1534/FUL - 4 Green End Road PDF 125 KB Minutes: The Committee resumed at 14:50 The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for change of use from
outbuilding to form new 1 Bed dwelling including forming a first floor by
raising the eaves and ridge height and a single storey front extension The Committee noted
the amendment sheet. 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. |
|
17/1697/FUL - 1A and 1B Malletts Road PDF 152 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a new
dwelling (Land r/o 1a, 1b and 1 Mallets Road). 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. |
|
17/1646/FUL - 30 Dudley Road PDF 122 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the construction of a single
storey dwelling within the rear garden of 30 Dudley Road. 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. |
|
17/0998/FUL - 98 Paget Road PDF 117 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a two storey side, and single
storey front and rear extensions The Committee noted
the amendment sheet. 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. |
|
17/1091/FUL - 8 Mill Road PDF 162 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a change of use from a charity shop
to a restaurant and new ventilation system. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. Roi Vaquero (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. 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. |
|
17/1740/FUL - 31 Peverel Road PDF 172 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of one 3 bedroomed
detached dwelling. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. 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. |
|
17/1420/FUL - Brookmount Court PDF 99 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for a change of use application from B1(a) office use to a car licence testing centre (sui
generis) use. 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. |
|
EN/0143/16 - 17 Richmond Road PDF 200 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement
action. The report had
regard to an alleged unauthorised change of use of a
domestic residential dwelling house into a commercial short-term visitor
accommodation letting use at the premises. The report sought authority to serve one change of use Enforcement Notice
directed at remedying the harm caused as a result of the breach occurring. The
recommendation looked to ensure compliance in the short term and onwards. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to accept the
officer recommendation: i. Authorised an enforcement notice under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there had been a breach of planning control within the last ten years, namely without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to short term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at the premises, specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5. ii. Authorised the Head of Planning Services (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the enforcement notice. iii. Delegated authority to the Head of Planning Services (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice. |
|
EN/0335/15 - 83 Searle Street PDF 100 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report from the Planning Enforcement
Officer requesting that members instruct officers to withdraw the enforcement
notice and close the enforcement investigation. A Planning
Enforcement Notice was served for the removal of a loft dormer following
retrospective refusal of planning permission and subsequent dismissal of an
appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. New information had to come to light
during the enforcement appeal process that on the balance of probabilities
shows the dormer likely to be immune from enforcement action. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to accept the officer recommendation:
i.
Authorised the
withdrawal of the enforcement notice as per withdrawal notice description set
out below: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Cambridge City Council, in accordance with its
powers contained in Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) (and without prejudice to
its powers to issue another Enforcement Notice) HEREBY WITHDRAW the
Enforcement Notice issued on the 15th August 2017 relating to 83 Searle Street,
Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 3DD (“the Premises”) which
required you within the period of six calendar months from the date when the
Enforcement Notice would take effect to: - ·
Permanently remove the rear loft dormer erected
(outlined in blue on attached plan for identification purposes only) at the
Land. ·
Make good the works undertaken and restore the roof
to its former condition using matching materials and colour of the existing
roof. ·
Remove all resulting materials from the premises. The said Enforcement Notice was appealed against to the Planning
Inspectorate before it came into effect from 14th September 2017. The said
Enforcement Notice has no effect as it has been withdrawn due to information
received by the local planning authority as part of the said appeal. Dated this
6th of December 2017
ii.
Authorised the Head of Planning Services (after
consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the withdrawal
notice and notify the Planning Inspectorate of the decision. |