Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Thornburrow [Alternate: Bird] and Tunnacliffe.

2 September 2020

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2020 were approved.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 of (approved plans) of planning permission 17/1372/FUL (residential development containing 15 flats comprising 8 x 2- bed units and 7 x 1-bed units, along with access, car parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing buildings) – to allow amendments including changes to the fenestration and amendment to the height of the central link to suit the proposed lift system and provide M4(2) accessibility to all levels.

The Principal Planner updated her report by recommending an additional informative stating that s106 agreement terms would apply to this and any future Section 73 applications.

Mr McKay (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the Section 73 application 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 including the informative relating to the existing s106 Agreement attaching to planning permission 17/1372/FUL.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of existing garages and hardstanding to provide 4 modular homes.

The Principal Planner updated her report by referring to updated condition wording and removal of three conditions detailed on the Amendment Sheet.

The Committee received a written representation in objection to the application from a resident of Elmfield Road [read by the Committee Manager]:

      i.          As a landlady of the ground adjacent to Dundee close (CB4), this issue is extremely important to me because it will radically change the landscape and the social life of the neighbourhood.

     ii.          There is more than one reason to reject this planning permission.

   iii.          A couple of months ago, during the discussion between the local council (Cambridge City) and the planning committee, some concerns were raised by the planning committee about the size of the "micro-home" and the impact of this type of accommodation on the territory.

   iv.          There is an evident conflict of interest in the decision making for this case.
On one end the applicant has previously clearly defined the minimum required standard size for new houses ensuring a dignified quality of life, on the other hand the same applicant is called to decide over an exception to the same rules which has no character of urgency and represents a deviation of 30% from the norm (13 sqm less than expected). This anomaly would set a precedent undermining the transparency and fairness of the planning permission process, hence the application should be rejected.
Surely, the proposal does not encounter the support of the local residents, as only objections have been submitted online for an arrangement out of character and context in an area without other pods.
Moreover, the lack of details and criteria in the selection and management of the occupancies does not guarantee the most in need will access and benefit from the new micro dwellings in a responsible and sustainable way.

    v.          Finally, I would like to remind this Committee that I submitted a planning request to gain access from Dundee Close to the back of my property and at this stage it is close to being evaluated, so your decision will impact my right to get access to Dundee close. Please consider postponing your decision until this situation is resolved.

Mr Lowings (Agent’s representative, City Council) 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, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer in the Officer’s report, as amended on the Amendment Sheet, including:

      i.          revised wording to conditions 12 (dust mitigation and management), 14 (carbon emissions) and 16 (surface and foul drainage);

     ii.          deletion of conditions 4 (closure of public highway), Il (piling) and 17 (flood resilient construction);

   iii.          rewording of conditions 19 and 20 to make reference to condition no. 15, not 18, due to re-numbering of the proposed conditions list.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition 5 of planning permission 19/0902/FUL (Change of use from existing automobile repair shop (vacant unit) to a mixeduse Class B2 (microbrewery) and Class A4 (drinking establishment) and installation of cycle storage facilities) to read: The Premises shall only be open to the public at the following times: Tuesday-Friday 16:00hrs-23:00hrs; Saturday: 11:00hrs-23:00hrs.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Ainsworth Street:

      i.          Drinkers did not wish to remain indoors [within 23A Hooper Street]. This led to anti-social behaviour which affected nearby residents.

     ii.          Requested the hours of operation be reduced and drinkers be required to remain indoors.

   iii.          New residents were moving into Hooper Street who may not be aware of these proposals.

   iv.          A poorly run pub would lower local property prices.

Ms Temple (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

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

i.                He was incorrectly referred to as “Councillor Roberts” instead of “Councillor Robertson” in the Officer’s report.

ii.               Pubs created noise, but residents should expect this when moving into new homes being built near the pub in Hooper Street.

iii.             The situation would be different if a [new] pub opened when housing was already in place as per the Calvery Brewery.

iv.             Other pubs in the area that were linked with noise and anti-social behaviour faced prosecution and their licence was at risk.

v.              Conditions were put on the 23A Hooper Street pub application in 2019 to restrict noise by drinkers, and a noise management plan put in place.

vi.             Lockdown has affected pubs. Drinkers’ behaviour affected residents. The current application should address these issues. If not, residents should report noise and anti-social behaviour concerns to the City Council’s Environmental Health Officers.

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include measures to control external area drinking and spillage of  drinkers/patrons into the street.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to grant the Section 73 application 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 including the amendment to condition 2 concerning  measures to limit disturbance to residents through the control of external area drinking, a managed exit out of hours and spillage of drinkers/patrons into the street.

Delegated authority given to Officers to draft the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Spokes.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a single storey 3-bedroom dwelling to the rear of 98A and 98B Shelford Road, with parking space.

The Planning Officer updated her report by referring to the Amendment Sheet. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: delete condition 15, which is a repeat of condition 6.

Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative on any planning permission in relation to fire engine access.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer including the informative relative  to  fire engine access.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a new 1.5 storey dwelling with basement to replace the existing garage at the rear of 34 Huntingdon Road.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Huntingdon Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.          Concerned that the proposed addition of the basement will result in the loss of their fence and damage to the established planting and adjacent garage.

     ii.          Concerned by the loss of 40sqm of the garden space serving the host dwelling at No.34.

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Informatives on any planning permission to ensure party wall agreement is in place before development commences;

     ii.          Informative to ensure residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the resident’s parking scheme.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative that the arrangements with neighbouring roofs, gutters and boundaries were satisfactory.

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.          delegated authority to Officers, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional informatives to:

a.    ensure a party wall agreement is in place before development commences;

b.    ensure residents of the proposed property would not benefit from the residents’ parking scheme;

c.    ensure arrangements with neighbouring roofs, gutters and boundaries were satisfactory.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of a two-storey two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space and associated soft landscaping.

The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to the Amendment Sheet. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

Notwithstanding the approved plans, the building, hereby permitted, shall be constructed to meet the requirements of Part M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings' of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended 2016).

Reason: To secure the provision of accessible housing (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 51).

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the landscape condition should be amended to explicitly say there would be a net gain in biodiversity.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that an informative be included on any planning permission linked to the landscape condition in as much that two new trees should replace the two which are to be lost.

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;

     ii.          the inclusion of the M(4)2 condition detailed in the Amendment Sheet; and  

   iii.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following amendment to condition11: the landscape condition should be amended to explicitly require a net gain in biodiversity.

   iv.          an informative should be linked to condition 11 that two new trees should be put in place of the two that had been lost.