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Note: Please note that Agenda Item 9 Application number 18/0758/FUL has been withdrawn from this agenda
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Nethsingha. Councillor Hipkin left after the consideration of item 18/2163/FUL. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2018 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|
18/0806/FUL - 291 Hills Road PDF 381 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for a residential development containing
14 flats comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 6 x 1-bed units, along with access, car
parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing
buildings. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Suggested there were sound material
considerations to refuse the application. (As below.) ii.
Avoidance of affordable housing
provision by dropping the number of units on-site from 15 to 14 to avoid the
threshold. iii.
Cramped accommodation and lack of
usable amenity space. iv.
Noise concerns. v.
Failure to provide a high quality
living environment. vi.
The application should be assessed
against policies in the new National Planning Policy Framework and emerging
Local Plan, even if these were not signed off by the Planning Inspector. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor McGerty (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Objected to the lack of affordable housing provided
on-site. This was a concern about the previous application too.
ii.
Thanked the Applicant for responding in some way to
the points made at the earlier Development Control Forum.
iii.
Queried why the Applicant had used minimum space
standards for rooms if the Applicant was keen to provide high
quality/affordable housing where possible. Queried if units were crammed onto
the site (to get maximum numbers). Councillor Pippas (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Hills Road is a gateway to the city.
ii.
Suggested the application was contrary to policies
in the emerging Local Plan.
iii.
Residents and local councillors had identified 10 ways
where they believed the application did not meet (new) Local Plan policies eg amenity space and responding to context.
iv.
Cambridge is an attractive city due to its
architecture, this needed to be protected.
v.
Concern over demolition and replacement of the
existing building. This should be kept and reconfigured internally for re-use. The Chair re-iterated points made by the Senior Planning Officer in her
introduction:
i.
This was a new application that should be
considered on its own merits.
ii.
The 4 reasons for refusal given for the last
application were material considerations.
iii.
The Committee were obliged under planning law to
consider the application under the current Local Plan and National Planning
Policy Framework, as the emerging ones were not adopted. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 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, with delegated authority to agree
the wording of the S106 Agreement. |
|
17/1815/FUL - 143-147 Newmarket Road and 149 Newmarket Road PDF 286 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. As applications for 143-147 Newmarket Road and 149 Newmarket Road
and Abbey Church impacted on each
other, the Committee were advised to listen to the Planner’s introductory report
on both, listen to public speakers on both, then deliberate on both
applications before voting separately on each. The application sought approval for the demolition of No.149 Newmarket
Road and existing garage structures, the erection of new buildings producing a
total of 11 residential units (an increase of 10), the formation of a cafe
space (use class A3) on the ground floor of Logic House, brick and tile tinting
to Logic House and associated infrastructure and works. The Planner updated her report by referring to text amendments and
pre-committee amendments to recommendation on the amendment sheet. The Planner
said the report contained a typographical error, there were 2 windows not 1 at
the rear of the property. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Circulated a handout of pictures
(already in the public domain) listing residents’ concerns. ii.
The application would have an
overbearing impact on the Conservation Area and Beche
Road residents. iii.
The application would have a
negative impact on green space and the grade II listed Abbey Church. iv.
Residents were concerned that the
Logic House Applicant broke an agreement to do a joint scheme with Abbey Church.
By taking their own application forward, the Logic
House development would block the Church’s. v.
Suggested the uncoordinated
development of the area was contrary to Local Plan policy 3/6. The Appointed Person on the Parish Church Council of Christ Church
representation covered the following issues:
i.
Objected to the application process rather than the
design itself.
ii.
The Abbey Church was a key historic building his
organisation wanted to bring back into use.
iii.
The Church was working with this site’s Applicant
on a joint scheme, but the Applicant had broken the joint working arrangement. iv.
The Church would prefer a joint working arrangement
in future. Mr Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about
the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Re-iterated residents’ comments that the
application would impact on residents of Beche Road
and Abbey Road.
ii.
The Developer broke joint working arrangements with
the Church.
iii.
Asked the Committee to defer considering the
application to give the Church more time to revise their application or
re-instate joint working arrangements with this site’s developer. iv.
Suggested the application could be refused due to: a.
Impact of uncoordinated development on Beche Road/Church (Local Plan policy 3/6). b.
Harm to a historic building (Local Plan policy
3/10). c.
Negative impact on public amenity:
i. Loss of post
office.
ii. Lack of acceptable
space.
iii. Lack of light. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to reject the
officer recommendation to approve the application. The Chair decided that possible reasons for refusal should be voted on
and recorded separately:
i.
Scale, mass and height of the application
prejudiced the development of the Abbey Church site. Agreed unanimously
to
accept as a reason for refusal.
ii.
Impact of sense of enclosure and overbearing on Beche Road. Agreed by 6 votes
to 0 to accept as a reason for refusal.
iii.
Scale, design, massing and streetscape did not
enhance the character of the Conservation Area. Agreed by 7 votes
to 1 to accept as a reason for refusal. (Reason (iii) was originally agreed without streetscene
reference, so Committee voted 6-2 to annul the reason then re-voted 6-1 to
include the streetscene reference.) iv.
Poor quality of living and amenity space. Agreed by 7 votes
to 1 to accept as a reason for refusal. Agreed by 6 votes
to 1 to accept the reasons for refusal as listed above. Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the
officer recommendation for the following reasons: 1.
By virtue of its scale, mass, and height adjacent
to the boundary with the pan handle strip of land which forms part of the Abbey
Church site, the proposal would prejudice the future development potential on
the adjacent site and would therefore be contrary to Policy 3/6 of the
Cambridge Local Plan (2006). 2.
By virtue of its scale, mass, height, and proximity
to the northern boundary of the site, the proposal would have an unacceptable
enclosing, overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking impact on the gardens of
dwellings in Beche Road to the north, which are
approximately 3.5m lower than the application site. The proposal would
therefore harm the amenities of occupiers of the adjacent dwellings contrary to
Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 4/7 and 3/12. 3.
By virtue of the scale, massing and design of the
buildings, the development would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene of this part of Newmarket Road and would fail
to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
and would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the adjacent Grade II
Listed Abbey Church. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies 3/4,
3/7, 3/12, 4/10 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and the National
Planning Policy Framework (2018). 4.
The proposed development, by virtue of the overly
cramped and small internal living spaces within the dwellings and the poor
quality of external amenity space for all of the units, would fail to provide a
satisfactory quality of living environment and standard of amenity for future
occupiers. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of
policy 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) which seeks to provide high
quality living environments within new developments. |
|
17/2163/FUL - Abbey Church, St Andrew The Less, Newmarket Road PDF 151 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
construction of 3 dwellings on a strip of land to the east of the site which runs
adjacent to 149 Newmarket Road. The development proposed is made up of 1 no.
two bedroom dwelling (unit 3G) and 2 no. one bedroom dwellings (units 1G and
2G). The Appointed Person on the Parish Church Council of Christ Church addressed the
Committee in support of the application. 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. |
|
18/0765/FUL - Garage Block, Markham Close PDF 196 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of existing garages
and erection of 5 no. affordable apartments with associated car parking. The Committee
noted that the planning application had been submitted by Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP) which is a joint venture company set up by Cambridge City
Council and Hill Investment Partnership. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident speaking on behalf of residents of Markham Close flats. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Welcomed the fact that concerns regarding
safeguarding had been addressed.
ii.
Raised concerns regarding the loss of the parking
provided by the garages that would be lost.
iii.
Alternative garage provision was over half a mile
away.
iv.
Pressure on on-street parking would increase both
from the increase in housing units and the loss of the garages.
v.
Inadequate consideration had been given to the
needs and concerns of the existing community. Stephen Longstaff (Applicant’s Agent)
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. |
|
18/0758/FUL - 57 Hartington Grove PDF 144 KB Minutes: Withdrawn from the agenda and not discussed. |
|
18/0827/FUL - 108 Grantchester Meadows PDF 222 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of a two storey house
and construction of a new dwelling. Richard Owers (Applicant’s Architect) addressed the Committee in support
of the application. Some members of the committee had concerns regarding the visual impact
of the PV panels when viewed from the riverside and Grantchester Meadows. 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. |