Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Lord. Councillor Page-Croft was present as the Alternate.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Baigent	All	Personal: Member of Extinction Rebellion and the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Councillor Baigent	20/24/Plan	Had considered 19/1756/FUL and S/4532/19/FL The Meadows at Joint Development Control Committee 4 August, but would consider the Buchan Street application objectively  today [5 August] and vote on the application.
Councillor Porrer	20/24/Plan	Personal: Discretion unfettered from discussion of the Meadows part of the development at Housing Scrutiny Committees in 2019.
Councillor Porrer	20/25/Plan	Personal and prejudicial: The application was from her employer and regarded her work in student support.   Withdrew from discussion and meeting, and did not vote.
Councillor Green	20/25/Plan	Personal and prejudicial: The application was linked to Amazon which was a significant aspect of her business.   Withdrew from discussion and meeting, and did not vote.
Councillor Porrer	20/26/Plan	Personal: Discretion unfettered from discussion of issues that affected her ward, other Ward Councillors had dealt with these.
Councillor Thornburrow	20/26/Plan	Personal and prejudicial: Withdrew as she knew the applicant.   Withdrew from discussion and meeting, and did not vote.

 

·       21 May

·       4 June

·       17 June

·       1 July

The minutes of the following meetings were approved as a correct record:

·      21 May

·      4 June

·      17 June

·      1 July

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing community centre, shop and cafe and erection of new shop (use class A1), community cafe (use class A1/A3/D1), 28 affordable dwellings, car parking with modified vehicular access arrangements, open space, play equipment and new landscaping.

 

The Principal Planner updated his report by:

      i.          Amending Condition 46

 

Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, all windows at first and second floor levels on the western elevation of Block A shall be fitted with obscure glass, and shall be non-openable to a height of 1.70m above the finished floor level of the rooms they serve.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity Of nearby properties. (Cambridge Local plan 2018 policy 36).

     ii.          Referring to pre-committee amendments on the amendment sheet.

 

An additional condition and informative in relation to archaeology are recommended, as follows:

 

Condition: No demolition/development shall commence until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has implemented a programme of archaeological work which has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition/development shall take place other than under the provisions of the agreed WSI, which shall include:

 

a) the statement of significance and research objectives;

b) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works;

c) The timetable for the field investigation as part of the development programme;

d) The programme and timetable for the analysis, publication & dissemination, and deposition of resulting material.

 

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate archaeological investigation of the site has been implemented before development commences.

 

Informative:

Partial discharge of the condition can be applied for once the fieldwork at Part c) has been completed to enable the commencement of development.

 

Part d) of the condition shall not be discharged until all elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Callander Close:

      i.          In 2002 Labour Councillors prevented the closure of Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre by Liberal Democrat Councillors as result of a petition by residents.

     ii.          King’s Hedges needed its own community centre.

   iii.          Roosting bats would be disturbed by the loss of Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre.

 

Mr Digby (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Johnson (Executive Councillor and CIP Board Member) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                In 2017 the City Council Community Centre Strategy deemed it appropriate to merge Buchan Street and the Meadows facilities.

ii.               This would allow the Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre site to be used for affordable housing.

iii.             There was high demand for housing in the city and house prices were high. As such there was significant demand for affordable housing.

iv.             The Buchan Street and the Meadows sites were linked.

v.              The Buchan Street site was key to the City Council delivering homes for residents in order to meet demand.

vi.             Homes would be M42 compliant and one property would be M43 compliant.

vii.           Other benefits the application would deliver were:

a.    Open/community and commercial space.

b.    Sustainable heating solutions for buildings eg photovoltaic panels.

c.    Electric vehicle charging points.

d.    It was an example of a bio-diverse and sustainable development.

 

Councillor Price (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                Supported the scheme as a Ward Councillor.

ii.               There had been some historic objections to redeveloping the site by residents due to fear of crime. This had been designed out as much as possible in the new application, the Police had raised no objections.

iii.             The site would deliver open space for the whole community.

iv.             In 2002 Labour Councillors objected to the closure of Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre as there was no provision of alternative facilities. There were now at The Meadows Centre. There would be no loss of facilities in the area as Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre would not be demolished until The Meadows Centre was open.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

                          i.          an amendment to the green roof condition requiring it to be maintained in perpetuity;

                         ii.          insertion of a post box informative (referenced in committee papers but not included in the Officer’s report).

 

The amendments were 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 prior completion of an Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

     ii.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report, additional archaeology condition and informative as set out above, plus amendment to condition 46 as set out above;

   iii.          delegated authority to Officers to draft:

                          i.          an amendment to the green roof condition requiring it to be maintained in perpetuity;

                         ii.          insertion of an informative (referenced in committee papers but not included in the Officer’s report): It is acknowledged that there is a post box at present on the site which would be lost. Whilst this is not a planning consideration, the intention is for this to be replaced;

                       iii.          to review arrangements of bike store doors, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes.

Councillors Green and Porrer withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for installation of lockers adjacent to Michael Ashcroft Building (off Broad Street).

 

Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                Concerns of local residents’ were noted in the Officer’s report.

ii.               Broad Street was a very narrow road and vehicles found it hard to turn in. This caused frequent damage to the road and nearby properties. The Applicant had been asked to provide a traffic management plan as a result. The route was heavily used by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

iii.             Had contacted the ARU Director of Estates and Facilities to ask for the application to be withdrawn due to the concerns of residents and Councillor Robertson. He had not received a satisfactory answer.

iv.             The application was due to go to 21 May 2020 planning committee, but was withdrawn until this meeting.

v.              The Officer’s report commented on traffic issues but suggested there were no significant noise/disturbance issues. The Highways Authority made no comment to the initial consultation and there were no details on the amendment sheet. In the Planner’s verbal presentation an officer said a traffic management study could be done.

vi.             ARU claimed access to the Amazon lockers would be restricted, but this would not be the case in practice. It was unenforceable so lockers would be accessible to students/public 24/7.

vii.           Students drove to ARU despite being told not to by the university. They parked in local residential areas, this led to complaints being made to Councillor Robertson. Students would want to access the lockers which was understandable, but their location was unacceptable. Other sites were better suited, such as Parkside Pool.

viii.         Local Plan Policy 81 was not met.

ix.             Requested that if the application were approved, that conditions were imposed to restrict who could access the lockers and the hours when they could do so.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) 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.

Councillor Thornburrow withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the extension of the existing pontoon to provide a larger pontoon.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident (Company Secretary of Beaufort Place Ltd):

      i.          The structure would be intrusive.

     ii.          The application was an opportunity to curb the less attractive activities of punt companies, without spoiling their fun.

   iii.          Requested the application be considered in the same way as a new bar or café that would be located close to residential houses.

   iv.          The site needed appropriate waste facilities.

    v.          Seven companies now competed for punting trade from the area instead of the former one. They were open all year.

   vi.          Residents had noise concerns. They were also disturbed by anti-social behaviour throughout the year.

 vii.          Asked for the application to be deferred until the punt company could put “it’s house in order”.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to defer the application to seek further information regarding:

      i.          Review of the licensing process including hours of operation and regulation of these.

     ii.          The number of punts in operation.

   iii.          Proposed scissor lift.

   iv.          Condition information.

    v.          History of environmental health enforcement in the area.

   vi.          Punt queueing arrangements.

 vii.          Consultation with Conservators of the River Cam.

viii.          Public toilet provision, including accessible facilities.

The application was withdrawn to allow further public consultation.

Having undergone a trial period of 9am committee start times, Members to  review if they prefer 9am or wish to revert back to 10am in future.

 

Having undergone a trial period of 9am committee start times, Members were asked to review if they preferred 9am or wished to revert back to 10am [or another time 9am-10am] in future.

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to revert back to 10am from the 2 September 2020 meeting, subject to review in future, most likely in autumn 2020.