Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Page-Croft. Also Councillor McQueen,
Councillor Thornburrow attended as her Alternate. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2019 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||
19/1159/FUL - Park Street Car Park PDF 320 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of existing multi-storey car
park and erection of an aparthotel (Use Class C1) alongside an underground
public car park, public cycle store and associated works The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment
sheet and revising the recommendation:
i.
Amend condition 19 (deliveries/servicing).
ii.
New conditions as requested by the Local Lead Flood
Authority. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following: · Objector’s Agent
on behalf of The Maypole Public House and 8 Portugal Place. · Cambridge Cycling
Campaign. · Resident of Park
Parade. · Local
resident. The representations covered the following issues: i.
Any car parking provision, except blue badge,
should be minimised. ii.
The aisle width in some bike
storage areas was too small for different types of bikes. Requested a planning
condition requiring appropriate parking provision for cargo bikes. iii.
Referred to section 7.2 of the
Officer’s report and stated the reported number of representations in
support/objection was inaccurate. 109 objections appeared not to be referenced. iv.
Requested the Committee defer
considering the application until all representations could be considered and a
balanced response presented. Suggested a sound planning decision could not be
made if all representations had not been fully considered. v.
Expressed specific concerns
regarding: a.
Provision of car parking.
i. Queried
if the car park provided the appropriate amount of spaces.
ii. Queried
if apart-hotel occupants would park in residential areas. b.
Gas usage from the Energy Station. c.
Public toilet provision. d.
Ground water. e.
Vibration and noise. f.
Impact on local businesses during
construction period. vi.
Requested plans for the hotel be
scaled down. Andrew Heselton
(Applicant’s
Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Porrer (Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the
Committee about the application: i.
Wished to echoed comments made by
the Objectors in today’s committee. ii.
Suggested the Council would breach
its own Local Plan Policy if the application were approved due to the loss of
public toilets: a.
There was no proven lack of need
to justify removal. b.
There were no nearby alternative
facilities. iii.
Disabled facilities were a key
feature for the town centre. Expressed concern at the loss of the accessible
toilet in Park street. iv.
Noted the Officer stated in his
verbal introduction to Committee that the planning application caused a
conflict in policy. v.
Queried if some car parking spaces
could be taken out and replaced with toilet facilities. The Director of Planning
and Economic Development said: i.
The adopted Local Plan sought to protect community space.
The planning application did not breach Local Plan priorities, the Council was
following its development plan. Members had to balance competing priorities
when making their decision. The loss of the public toilets had to be balanced
against the benefits from the application. ii.
Referred to section 7.2 of the
Officer’s report and stated the reported number of representations in
support/objection was incorrect and should read as follows: 143 letters of representation have been
received as a result of this process – iii.
Although the Officer’s report contained
a typographical error where the numbers of representations in support and
objection had been switched, the report accurately summarised material issues
from the representations. iv.
Gave a verbal summary of
representations to Members of the Planning Committee so they could be confident
they were aware of all issues from the report and Planning Portal on the City
Council website. The Director referred to issues from the report and Planning
Portal during the deliberation in committee. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation: i.
To amend triggers
(conditions 27 and 28) regarding bird and bee hotel. ii.
Amend condition 13 (landscaping) to require tree
replacements for 20 years rather than 5 The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Baigent proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation: i.
Public access to the café
and courtyard be protected through condition. ii.
Cycle parking provision. The amendments were carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 4
votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the
Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report,
subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; [and]
ii.
delegated authority for Officers
to make the following amendments/additions: a.
Amend condition 13 (landscaping) to require tree
replacements for 20 years rather than 5; b.
Amend condition 19 (deliveries/servicing) to
provide an exception for food deliveries to individual rooms; c.
Change the triggers for conditions 27 and 28
(ecology) from prior to occupation to pre-above ground works; d.
New condition to secure public accessibility to New
Jordan’s Yard; e.
New conditions as requested by the Local Lead Flood
Authority; f.
New condition(s) regarding archaeology in liaison
with the County Council. g.
New condition seeking a revised cycle store layout. |
|||||||||||||
19/0718/REM - 295-301 Histon Road PDF 192 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for reserved matters
(layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of 27 residential
units including affordable dwellings following demolition of existing buildings together with associated infrastructure pursuant
to application 15/0519/OUT. The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the amendment
sheet and revising the recommendation to remove condition 8. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from 3 local residents: i.
Did not object to the development
in principle, but queried why plots 9 and 18 had to be wedged up against the
boundary. This was bad planning. ii.
Took issue with the Applicant’s
description of the proposed buildings. iii.
The development would impact on
neighbouring properties. iv.
Requested the application be
deferred to allow the Developer time to consider Objector’s comments and
possibly amend the application. v.
Flats opposite Tavistock Road were
too high at 3-5 storeys and would impact on (existing) neighbouring properties.
They would: a.
Be inappropriate for the character
of the area. b.
Impact on neighbours’ amenity
space. c.
Cause overlooking and loss of
privacy. vi.
Queried if the building
orientation could be altered by 180 degrees if the height could not. The
building could then overlook trees and open spaces instead of peoples’ living
spaces. vii.
Mature trees in the area attracted
many species of birds and wildlife. Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Sheil (Ward
Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Was speaking on behalf of residents from 305, 309,
and 311 Histon Road. a.
They understood the need for housing in the area. b.
Broadly supported the scheme, but had some
concerns.
ii.
Plot 9 and 18 needed to be carefully considered at
the outline planning stage in 2015/16.
iii.
The buildings and garages on Plots 9 and 18 were
“jammed up against the boundary”. Queried why the property on Plot 9 was
positioned where it was and if it could be moved away from the boundary.
Suggested moving Plot 18 garage away from boundary to increase the internal
space for new residents. iv.
Queried if building heights were appropriate for
Plots 9 and 18. Suggested the building on Plot 18 should be a bungalow, not a
multi-storey building, as it was a windfall site. The Committee Manager read out a written statement submitted by Councillor Payne (Ward
Councillor – City Council):
i.
As a
City Councillor for Castle ward which includes the McManus Estate, she was
supportive of the principle of design for 259-301 Histon Road and its inclusion
of 40% affordable housing.
ii.
Stated
her appreciation to the Guy Turvill for his efforts to work with residents to
minimise the damage and vandalism occurring on site.
iii.
Wished
to request that further consideration be given to two aspects of the proposed. a.
Height
and proximity to Tavistock Road. The suggestion of three storey apartments
would mean these houses become significantly overlooked, greatly reducing the
quality of life of existing residents.
Three storey blocks are also out of keeping with the surrounding
properties on the McManus Estate. b.
Preservation
of trees forming the boundary between application site and Tavistock Road. The
row of conifer trees between the application site and the houses on Tavistock
Road form a boundary, offering noise protection and privacy to residents. They were also a haven for wildlife. These trees were already damaged by vehicles
entering and leaving the development.
While the application regards these trees to be of limited quality,
their preservation was important for the privacy of existing residents.
Requested this tree boundary be maintained and improved before the new
development was occupied. Queried who would be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of the conifer trees. Councillor Green
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include informatives:
i.
Signage
to prevent poor parking. ii.
Boundary
treatment in the landscape condition. This amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Baigent
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a balcony
screen condition. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an
informative regarding hedgehogs. This amendment was carried
unanimously. 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; [and]
ii.
the removal of Condition 8; [and]
iii.
the following additional
condition: a. a balcony screen condition;
[and] iv.
informatives included on the
planning permission in respect of: a. Signage
prevent poor parking. b. Boundary
treatment in the landscape condition. c. an
informative regarding hedgehogs. |
|||||||||||||
19/0560/FUL - Land rear of 5-17 New Square PDF 356 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for demolition of existing garages, relocation of existing sub-station
within the site, and redevelopment to provide 8no. residential dwellings (Use
Class C3) with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The Senior
Planning Officer highlighted the following: i.
Highways safety concerns
had been addressed. ii.
Paragraph 8.16 of the
officers report contained an error, the building was 50cm, not 30 cm, greater
in height than permitted development. iii.
The applicant confirmed
their intention to submit a daylight / sunlight information to demonstrate the
impact on 9 Elm Street. iv.
All windows retained 96%
of daylight levels. v.
The development complied
with BRE guidelines as over 90% of sunlight levels were retained. vi.
Referred to an
additional representation from 38 Orchard Street. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a local resident: i.
Objections raised at the
Development Control Forum had been ignored. ii.
The development would create a
very narrow street. iii.
It would not be possible for 2
cars to pass each other on the street, one car would need to reverse into a
‘blind spot’ for the cars to pass each other. iv.
Visitor parking would exacerbate
existing problems. v.
Orchard Street was a popular
tourist attraction. vi.
Fewer dwellings on the site would
be appreciated. vii.
The application was a significant
overdevelopment of a small site. viii.
There would be a significant loss
of privacy, the report did not mention whether windows would be fixed shut,
although it was noted that they would be obscure glazed. ix.
There would be a significant sense
of enclosure on the outdoor space. x.
They were effected by the highest
density element of the scheme. xi.
Did not object to the principle of
development but concerns that had been expressed at the Development Control
Forum had not been addressed. Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Councillor Porrer
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Welcomed the changes which had been made to the
application since the Development Control Forum. ii.
The bike space and visitor cycle space was
appreciated. iii.
Parking on college grounds would be appreciated. iv.
Expressed concerns regarding the narrow width of
the road. v.
The lack of a passing place was a concern, she was
also concerned that this would create a problem for residents and commuters. vi.
Queried speed controls. vii.
Noted that bins would be collected from the site
and put back by bin operators. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer. |
|||||||||||||
19/0964/FUL - 1 Regent Street PDF 117 KB Minutes: Councillor Thornburrow left the table to speak to
the Committee as a Ward Member; she took no part in the determination of the
application. The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought
approval for proposed low carbon refurbishment works to the building including
replacement passivhaus windows, the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV)
panels, a disabled entrance ramp and associated works. The Senior Planning Officer
presented his report to the Committee. John French (Applicant)
addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor
Bick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
He had previously spoken in strong
defence of the Conservation Area however this application concerned an
important trade-off between conservation area and climate change
considerations. ii.
He noted the test of ‘less than
substantial harm to the Conservation Area’ but it was a judgement whether any
harm to the Conservation Area is outweighed by any public benefit brought about
by the development. iii.
Took issue with the ‘public
benefit’ having to achieve a technical standard. iv.
The applicant was trying to do as
much as they could to reduce their carbon footprint. v.
The Council had declared a climate
emergency therefore change was required. vi.
The City Centre remained
functionally attractive and embraced change taking into consideration the
City’s role as a centre for technology. vii.
On balance he could accept a
decision to approve this application. viii.
Planning policy used the language
‘harm’ however this could be better described as ‘differences’. ix.
The building will still be in situ
and could arguably look refreshed and be a more pleasant place in which to
work. x.
Noted the application was a
delicate balance for the Committee to determine. xi.
Commented that local planning
policy guidance was required in light of the climate emergency
declaration. Councillor Thornburrow
(Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Pointed out that in this instance
the heritage asset was the Conservation Area and not Entopia House of itself.
This proposal would not cause harm to the Conservation Area although if one
came to the view that it would, then surely the public benefits of the scheme
would outweigh such harm. ii.
Refusal of the application would
be a step backwards following the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency. iii.
The application was not solely
about improving the building thermally because there were other improvements. iv.
The Council, visitors to the city
and its residents could learn about sustainable improvements to buildings
directly as a result of this exemplar scheme which would benefit all. v.
Window typology was not mentioned
in the Conservation Area Appraisal, if it was important then it would have been
included within it. vi.
The existing windows were not the
original windows but a poor replacement.
The replacement windows proposed in the application would not harm the
Conservation Area. vii.
The Council needed to consider the
justification of the application in terms of the public benefit. The proposed
windows would address climate emergency considerations. viii.
Asked the Committee to approve the
application. It would not damage the street scene. The Committee: Both the Delivery Manager
Development Management and the Senior Planning Officer responded to the
Committee’s queries concerning the proposal and its impact and the “harm” test
addressed in the report and the Senior Planning Officer’s presentation. The
Committee concluded by 3 votes to 2 that this proposal would not in their view
cause “harm” to the Conservation Area. Additionally, the Committee was mindful
of the perceptible public benefits in terms of an exemplar scheme achieving
carbon reduction and by taking positive action relative to the Council’s
declaration of a climate emergency as material considerations to weigh in the
planning balance. The Chair brought closure
to the debate and took the Committee to the vote on the Officer’s
recommendation to refuse the application which was lost by 2 votes to 3. The
Committee then discussed the reason for approving the application. Two members
found no harm and one found harm but felt the public benefit outweighed the
harm. Committee then resolved (by 2 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions) that the reason for granting planning permission
contrary to the Officer recommendation is: i.
There was
no “harm” to Heritage Interests - notably the character and appearance of the
conservation area - arising from the proposals and the development would give
rise to public benefit comprising the significant improvement to the
environmental performance of an existing building. The
Chair called a short break and when the meeting reconvened Councillor Baigent
did not return to the meeting. The
Principal Planning Officer read through the following conditions which would
attach to the planning permission: 1. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission. Reason: In
accordance with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004). 2.
The development hereby permitted shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved plans as listed on this decision
notice. Reason: In the interests of good planning, for the
avoidance of doubt and to facilitate any future application to the Local
Planning Authority under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, the development, hereby permitted, shall be
constructed in accordance with the materials specified within the application
form and on the approved plans Reason: To
ensure that the external appearance of the development does not detract from
the character and appearance of the Conservation area. (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 policies 55, 57 and 61) 4.
No new windows shall be constructed in the
existing building, nor existing windows altered until drawings at a scale of
1:10 of details of new or altered sills, lintels, jambs, transoms, and mullions
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To
avoid harm to the special interest of the Conservation Area. (Cambridge Local
Plan 2018, policy 61) 5.
BREEAM Condition 1 – Design Stage
Certification Within 6
months of commencement of development, a BRE issued Design Stage Certificate
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that BREEAM
‘outstanding’ as a minimum will be met.
Where the interim certificate shows a shortfall in credits for BREEAM
‘outstanding’, a statement shall be submitted identifying how the shortfall
will be addressed. In the event that
such a rating is replaced by a comparable national measure of sustainability
for building design, the equivalent level of measure shall be applicable to the
proposed development. Reason: In
the interests of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting principles of
sustainable construction and efficient use of buildings (Cambridge Local Plan
2018 Policy 28). Resolved (by 3 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve the conditions to be attached to the planning
permission now granted by the Committee. |
|||||||||||||
19/0651/FUL - 23 Barrow Road PDF 118 KB Minutes: Councillor
Thornburrow left the table to speak to the Committee as a Ward Member; she took
no part in the determination of the application. The Committee received
an application for full planning permission. The application sought
approval for erection of a bike store. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident: i.
Spoke on behalf of a substantial
number of residents whose objections centred on the protection of the unique
qualities of the Barrow Road Conservation Area. ii.
All houses on Barrow Road are
situated on substantial plots, bike stores did not need to be sited forward of
the building line. iii.
A recent survey of residents
showed that most were enthusiastic cyclists and had bike storage at the back or
side of the house or a simple rack at the front and not a built store in the
front garden. iv.
The original application to
refurbish the property included a bike shed at the front of the property but
this was removed on the advice of the Planning Officer at the time. The bike store could have been included
within the envelope of the property but the owner chose not to do this. v.
Granting permission on the
condition that the bike shed was hidden behind a hedge was relying on nature to
conceal the permanent structure. Questioned how the Planning Officer would
monitor this condition in the future. vi.
Expressed concerns that this
application would set a precedent for future development of permanent
structures forward of the building line, contrary to planning guidance. vii.
Barrow Road was modelled on the
open streetscape of the garden suburb movement. viii.
The proposal had the potential to
adversely harm the character and appearance of Barrow Road. It did not comply with policy 61 of the Local
Plan. ix.
Asked the Committee to maintain
the protection afforded by the Conservation Area guidelines and refuse the
application. Graham Riley (Applicant’s
Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Thornburrow (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee
about the application: i.
Neighbours had referred to
previous planning application, the previous works undertaken were a direct
reason for this application. ii.
This was development which
required planning permission and should comply with Conservation Area
Appraisal. iii.
Buildings and structures should
not come forward in front of the building line as it would detract from the
Conservation Area. iv.
Hedges in a Conservation Area were
not protected and could therefore be removed at any time and would leave the
bike store looking quite prominent. v.
The bike store materials should be
similar to those used in the area. vi.
The justification for the
application was to encourage cycling in Cambridge. However she referred to the
resident’s survey which showed that half of resident’s already used bikes and
that there was a trend for young families to have bike stores at the rear of
the property or in the garage or a bike rack at the front of the house. She
disputed the contention that putting a bike shed at the front of the house
would encourage people to use bikes. vii.
The application had to be
considered against the public benefit. There
was no public benefit to have the bike shed at the front of the site. A condition was proposed
that the hedge be retained at a minimum height whilst the bike store was in
situ and that it would have to be replaced if the hedge become damaged or diseased. The exact wording would be delegated to
officers. This
amendment was carried by 3 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. The Committee: Resolved (2
votes to 2 – 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; and
ii.
the following additional condition
requiring retention of the hedge at a minimum height of 1.5 metres, and its
replacement if it dies, or becomes damaged. |
|||||||||||||
19/0183/FUL - 3 Saxon Street PDF 125 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension and
rear roof extension. The Planning Officer referred to amendments contained in the Amendment
Sheet. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a relative on behalf of a local resident: i.
The application would cause a huge
loss of light to the resident in terms of where she slept and lived in the
property. ii.
There was a 2 metre wall on one
side of the resident’ property which already obstructed light. The extension
would cause further enclosure. iii.
When the resident bought their
house, they did not think that the neighbouring property would be extended any
further than it already was. iv.
The length of the garden was 7
metres and the extension to the neighbour’s property would reach half of that
and would be overbearing to the resident. v.
The application would cause
overshadowing. vi.
14 letters of objection had been
sent into the Planning Department. vii.
The resident’s amenity would be
severely affected by the planning application and the application was contrary
to Local Plan Policy 58. Dr Stainsby (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor
Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Drew members attention to the conservation
Officer’s comments which stated that the application did not enhance the area. ii.
The row of cottages was a small set which had
already been extended by 2.5 metres, this application sought to extend the
property by a further 3 metres. iii.
The application was contrary to Local Plan Policy
58. iv.
Referred to the site plan and commented that this
would create a sense of enclosure for 2 Saxon Street. v.
The loss of light was the most important issue. The
amount of light available to the ground floor of 2 Saxon Street was limited. vi.
Commented that the light expert report did not make
a lot of sense. The report stated that the vertical sky component test was
likely to fail, this was mentioned in the report but then it said that this did
not matter. The rights of the resident
next door should not be ignored. vii.
Questioned the amount of sunlight which would be
available in the winter if the application was approved. viii.
In summary the application would create an enormous
sense of enclosure and loss of light to the neighbouring resident. Resolved (by 3 votes to 1 with 1
abstention) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the
application. The following reasons for refusal of
the application were put to the Committee and voted on separately: i.
Insufficient information has been submitted by the
applicant to demonstrate that the development would not result in an
unacceptable loss of light to the rear windows and gardens of the adjacent
properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. Consequently, the development would be
contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018. The
Committee supported this reason for refusal unanimously. ii.
By virtue of the bulk and mass of the rear
extension, its siting directly adjacent to both side boundaries and the
presence of existing high walls and buildings in the vicinity, the development
would result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure to the rear garden and
windows of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. In doing so,
the development would harm the amenities of the occupiers of those adjacent
properties contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018. The Committee supported this reason for
refusal by 4 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. iii.
The proposed extension, together with previous
additions to the property, would result in insufficient retained garden space
for the property. Consequently, the development would give rise to a poor level
of amenity for its occupiers, contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. The Committee supported this reason for
refusal by 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. The Committee: Resolved (by 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer
recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
Insufficient information has been submitted by the
applicant to demonstrate that the development would not result in an
unacceptable loss of light to the rear windows and gardens of the adjacent
properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. Consequently, the development would be
contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
ii.
By virtue of the bulk and mass of the rear
extension, its siting directly adjacent to both side boundaries and the
presence of existing high walls and buildings in the vicinity, the development
would result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure to the rear garden and
windows of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. In doing so,
the development would harm the amenities of the occupiers of those adjacent
properties contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
iii.
The proposed extension, together with previous
additions to the property, would result in insufficient retained garden space
for the property. Consequently, the development would give rise to a poor level
of amenity for its occupiers, contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018. |
|||||||||||||
The Committee voted to continue the meeting beyond 6pm. |
|||||||||||||
19/1317/FUL - 95B Glebe Road PDF 94 KB Minutes: Councillor
Sargeant left the meeting prior to the consideration of this agenda item. The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single storey front extension and
a partial first floor side extension. The Planning Officer referred to amendments contained in the Amendment
Sheet and also confirmed that Glebe Road was not within the Conservation Area. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a local resident of Baldwin Road: i.
The existing property was mainly
single storey with a roof which sloped away reducing the visual impact. The
proposed extension would affect this and affect the height and bulk of the
house. ii.
Overlooking would reduce privacy. iii.
The bulk of the house would be
closer by 5 metres. iv.
The reasons for objection could be
summarised as follows: a. Reduce
amenity b. Overbearing
effect on outlook c. Loss
of privacy d. Create
bulky house v.
The previous application had been
refused for the above reasons. vi.
None of his comments had been
included within the planning officer’s report. vii.
Comments regarding privacy had
been ignored. viii.
What was unacceptable in 2006 was
still unacceptable today. Dr Scott (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’s report,
subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report. |
|||||||||||||
19/0630/FUL - 2 Mill Road PDF 98 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for Change of Use from A1 (Retail) to A3 (Restaurants
and Cafes). The Principal Planning
Officer confirmed that the correct consultation process had been carried out. The Committee Manager read out a letter
of representation from a local resident who was unable to attending the
meeting: i.
The resident had 35 years business
experience on Mill Road. ii.
Mill Road prided itself on
diversity reflected culturally by the business owners and the diverse nature of
the goods and services provided. iii.
The current application did not
protect diversity, once an A3 licence was granted it was unlikely to be
removed. iv.
Expressed concerns that there may
be little incentive to travel to Mill Road for a single book shop and no other
surrounding retail options. v.
An A3 licence for restaurants and
cafes was generic and made no commitment for the type of food that might be
sold. Whilst he was a supporter of competition there must be a responsibility
to support existing independent businesses. vi.
Commented that only a limited
sample of businesses and individuals were notified about the application and
some adjacent business who would be directly affected were not contacted. vii.
The application should be refused
and retail licences should be upheld and protected. In an area already
dominated by A3 businesses there did not need to be another. The Committee requested
that an information on fire regulations be included. 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; and
ii.
an informative included on the
planning permission in respect of fire regulations. |