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: There were no apologies. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Minutes To follow Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting would be brought to the next meeting
for sign-off. |
|
New Local Plan Minutes: The Senior Planner updated Planning Committee on progress on the Local Plan: i. The Planning and Transport Committee resolved 2 October 2018 to recommend to Council (18 October 2018) to adopt the new Local Plan. ii. The Council was in a period of transition between the 2006 and 2014 Local Plans. However, Councillors should now give significant weight to the new Local Plan. iii. The Council received the Planning Inspector’s comments on 2014 Local Plan noon 29 August 2018, ie the same day as the last Planning Committee. iv. The Council reviewed 29 August committee decisions in light of the Planning Inspector’s comments and found the vast majority were unaffected. However, decision letters were not sent out for two applications: 18/0806/FUL - 291 Hills Road and 18/0765/FUL - Garage Block, Markham Close, the latter of which has been returned to committee today. v. The Romsey Labour Club application (from earlier in 2018) will also return to committee for further consideration in future. |
|
18/0090/FUL - 63 New Street PDF 133 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of a building
comprising of three 2 bed units, six 1 bed units and one studio flat. The
proposal would provide one visitor/disabled parking space and 13 cycle parking
spaces. Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillors sought
advice from the Legal Advisor on reasons that could be considered for refusal
of the application if they were minded to do so. The Legal Advisor said that amenity was a low risk reason for refusal,
parking was a higher risk one. He suggested not including it due to cost
implications to the Council if Officers tried to contest a decision that was
hard to defend. Several Committee Members were minded to support parking as a
possible reason for refusal as the application would exacerbate existing
parking pressure in the area. The Chair said that Highways Authority comments
in the report reflected advice to consider for housing estates in rural areas.
The comments had been made in January 2018, so were no longer relevant. They
had to be included in the Officer’s report as the comments had been made. The
Highways Authority were asked not to include generic comments more appropriate
to rural developments in future consultation responses. The Chair said National
Planning Policy Framework guidance on parking standards was a material
consideration for Planning Committee Members. Councillor Hipkin volunteered to give evidence at an appeal if
parking was proposed as a reason for refusal. The Committee: Resolved (by 8 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application. The Chair decided that the possible reasons for refusal should be voted
on and recorded separately: Resolved (unanimously) that Members were minded to refuse the
application for the following reason: There was no
direct access to private external amenity space. Resolved (by 6 votes to 3) that Members were minded to refuse the
application for the following reason: Lack of on-site
parking for future occupiers. Councillor Smart
proposed, and Councillor Nethsingha seconded, implementing the major decision
protocol. The Committee would give a minded to refuse decision which would be
brought back for review at a future committee. Resolved (by 7
votes to 0) to implement
the major decision protocol and were minded to refuse the application contrary
to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: i.
The
proposal has no direct access to a private external amenity area for units
3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate that 10
units can be accommodated on the site in a form that secures an acceptable
level of amenity space for future occupants. The proposal is therefore contrary
to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4 and 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan
2014: Proposed submission, July 2013 (submitted March 2014) as amended by the
Inspectors’ Main Modification policy 50. ii.
The
proposal has no car parking for future occupiers, apart from the
disabled/visitor car parking space. This will increase parking pressures on
nearby streets and therefore be detrimental to amenity of nearby residents. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4
& 3/12 and Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed submission, July 2013
(submitted March 2014) as amended by the Inspectors’ Main Modification policies
55 & 57. The case officer
will produce a follow up report concerning the potential reasons for refusal
for the members’ consideration at the next committee. |
|
18/1108/FUL - 560 Newmarket Road PDF 120 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the erection of a 1x Bed Bungalow along with
car parking and associated landscaping. Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Johnson
(Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and
made the following comments:
i.
Speaking on behalf of local residents who were
unable to attend.
ii.
The current proposal was an improvement on the
previous application but did not address all concerns.
iii.
Access for vehicles and pedestrians was still poor.
iv.
Would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy
for neighbours.
v.
Would have an adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbours.
vi.
Appeared to contravene the Local Plan (3.4, 3.10
and 3.7). The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 2 and 2 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. |
|
18/0758/FUL - 57 Hartington Grove PDF 84 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for Conversion of existing first floor and ground floor
HMO (7 occupants) into 5 self-contained bedsits, a two storey rear extension
and a side dormer. The
Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident who made the following comments:
i.
Speaking on behalf of herself and an owner occupier
and neighbours who were unable to attend.
ii.
Application was overdevelopment.
iii.
Would have an adverse impact on neighbour amenity.
iv.
Lack outdoor space.
v.
Single person units could be occupied by 2 people.
vi.
Had limited cycle and bin storage. vii.
Would be unpleasant for occupiers due to the amount
of obscure glazing. viii.
Scale and mass on build on the boundary line was
unacceptable.
ix.
Would result in noise nuisance. Ben Pridgon (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions 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. |
|
18/1050/FUL - 107 Hazelwood Close PDF 59 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for Part two storey, part single storey rear extension. Single storey front extension with alterations to convert existing
garage to habitable space and incorporate into main dwelling. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident who made the following comments:
i.
Loss of sunlight to rear windows and patio area.
ii.
Would be overbearing.
iii.
Feared the property would become a HMO and make
life unbearable for neighbours.
iv.
Parking issues would be exasperated. Parvez Khan (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. Councillor Mike
Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the
application and made the following comments:
i.
A previous application had been refused due to
size, scale, massing and the impact on neighbours.
ii.
Previous reasons still apply.
iii.
Scale of proposal out of keeping with the area. Councillor
requested that in in future report regarding application that had been to
committee before in the past include the reasons for previous refusal. The Committee
discussed the application and suggested that the application was out of keeping
with the character of the street. The size, massing and sense of dominance was considered inappropriate. The Committee: Resolved (by 9 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) to reject the officer recommendation to
approve the application. Resolved
unanimously to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: Due to the size and
scale of the proposed first floor rear extension and its proximity to the side
boundaries, it would negatively impact on the residential amenity of the
neighbouring properties 106 and 108 Hazelwood Close. The proposed first floor
rear extension would dominate these properties and cause a sense of enclosure,
particularly when viewed from the ground floor rear windows, which would be
unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies
3/4, 3/7 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to policies 55, 56 and
58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission, July 2013 (submitted
March 2014), as amended by the Inspectors' Main Modifications). |
|
18/0745/FUL - Cantabrigian RUFC PDF 60 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the installation of four 15 metre tall floodlight masts
each with no.3 2kw floodlights on top. The floodlights would be pointed down
towards the pitch. The masts are proposed to be located in each corner of the
pitch and provide 100lux over the pitch. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident who made the following comments:
i.
Speaking on behalf of a local resident group.
ii.
The amenities of local people were not being
protected.
iii.
Residents of Sedley
Taylor Avenue would be impacted by the proposed lighting.
iv.
Existing lighting was already problematic.
v.
Additional conditioning was required regarding the
angle and shading of the lights.
vi.
Permitted hours should not exceed the current
usage. Nigel Faben, Treasurer of Cantabrigian
RUFC addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Pippas
(Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee regarding the application
and made the following comments:
i.
Local residents had concerns.
ii.
Light pollutions would impact a number of
properties.
iii.
Concerns had been raised about the drainage of the
sports field.
iv.
Environmental information was missing.
v.
Applications lacked considerations for neighbours.
vi.
Neighbour fear increased use and extended hours of
lighting. vii.
A travel plan was needed as access was problematic. 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. |
|
18/0765/FUL - Garage Block, Markham Close PDF 163 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 the amendment sheet. Stephen Logstaf (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. |
|
18/1104/FUL - Gunhild Way Garages PDF 119 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of garages and erection of 2no.
affordable dwellings, widening of access and
associated works. The
Committee noted the amendment sheet. Stephen Longstaf (Applicant’s Agent) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. The Committee suggested that the site had offered the potential for
greater density and a more imaginative design. The Committee: Resolved (by 9 votes to 1 with 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. |
|
18/0768/FUL - 21-25 Fitzwilliam Road PDF 164 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for Fourth storey extension to create 1no 3bedroom flat,
and 4no 1no bedroom flats and 1no 1bed mews style flat to incorporate bin and
bike store. The Committee
noted the textual corrections contained in the amendment sheet and the late
representations received. Clive Barnes (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1 and 1 absetention) 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. |
|
TPO 21/2018 - 5A and 7 Herschel Road PDF 29 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject
to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 21/2018 that relates to 5A and 7 Herschel
Road. The Committee: Unanimously
Resolved to accept the
officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the
subject of the application. |
|
TPO 10/2018 - 2 Southacre Drive PDF 27 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application to confirm, not to confirm, or confirm subject
to modifications the Tree Preservation Order 10/2018 that relates to a 2 Southacre Drive. The Committee: Unanimously
Resolved to accept the
officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm the TPO that was the
subject of the application. |