Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: Officers have requested the following items be withdrawn from the agenda: 19/1756/FUL , 19/1757/FUL , 19/1141/FUL
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2020 were deferred to the next
meeting as minor changes were required to be made. |
|||||||||||||
19/1651/FUL - New South Court, Emmanuel College, St Andrews Street PDF 419 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the redevelopment of land at rear of
1 Regent Street, and works to Furness Lodge, Janus House and Camden Court for
the provision of student accommodation, a student bar, lecture and education
facilities and associated landscaping and enabling works. The Planning Officer asked the Committee to note the additional
conditions recommended for inclusion in the planning permission (if Members
were minded to grant planning permission) which are contained in the Amendment
Sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from the following: The representation covered the following issues: i.
Had no view either way on the
principle of the development although had concerns regarding cycle access which
needed a s106 obligation. ii.
The cycle access as proposed would
result in illegal cycling. The developer should be required to fund a
contraflow on the street. iii.
To leave the site and go into town
the developer was suggesting, cyclists would turn out of the development in the
opposite direction, move on to a pavement which doesn’t have a dropped curb,
negotiate bollards, go round Hobbs Pavillion, cycle past a busy route past the
hotel, wait at the traffic light by Pizza Hut, turn right and then head into
town. iv.
What would happen in practice was
that students would take the most direct cycling route, which was 1/3rd
of the length, had no obstructions or mixing with pedestrians. This would
potentially be dangerous if vehicles did not expect cyclists. v.
The developer should be required
to provide a contraflow lane and this should be secured through the s106
Agreement. vi.
Around Cambridge some one-way
streets have been made 2 way for cyclists. This was one of the few remaining
anomalies and now was an opportunity to sort this one out. vii.
Referred to a contraflow system
which has been agreed with the County Council for a hotel development on
Harvest Way. viii.
The street was wide enough for 3
cars and was therefore wide enough for a contraflow lane. ix.
The Highways Officer hadn’t
responded to his objection and had responded to a cycling section further away
from the proposed development. Fiona Reynolds (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 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, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report and on the Amendment Sheet; and
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair and Spokes, to include further conditions and amendments to
recommended conditions as follows: a. amend
condition 15 so that ducting infrastructure is included to future proof the car
park; b. revise
condition 26 specifically making reference to BS6187; c. an
additional boundary treatment condition or by specific reference to
the boundary wall in Condition 21 Hard and Soft Landscaping; d. amend
the green roof condition to include maintenance in perpetuity and
iii.
delegated authority to officers to
include informatives in respect of: a. sprinklers
in the basement b. boundary
wall treatment to set out how the boundary wall will be amended to break up the
visual appearance of the development. |
|||||||||||||
19/1756/FUL - The Meadows Community Centre, 1 St Catharines Road PDF 348 KB Minutes: Item withdrawn from today’s Planning Committee agenda and will be put to the new Joint Development Control Committee in August 2020 for determination. |
|||||||||||||
19/1757/FUL - Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre, 6 Buchan Street PDF 252 KB Minutes: Item withdrawn from today’s Planning Committee agenda and will be put to the next Planning Committee in August 2020 after the 19/1756/FUL Meadows application has been considered and determined by the new Joint Development Control Committee. |
|||||||||||||
19/1500/S73 - Cambridge Retail Park, Newmarket Road PDF 169 KB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73 application to remove
Condition 5 of C/02/0136/RM (Demolition of existing buildings and erection of non-
food retail units and garden centre, Drive thru restaurant with associated
servicing, Car Parking, Landscaping, new access and relocation of existing
amenity car park (reserved matters - to original application C/99/1121/OP)) -
removal of bollard. The Principal Planner referred to the Amendment Sheet which requested
that authority be delegated to officers to submit a Statement of Case to the
Planning Inspectorate outlining the recommended position of the City Council on
the application following the Applicant’s appeal against the non-determination
of the application. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign: The representation covered the following issues: i.
Objected to the application based
on road safety concerns and the conflict with policies in the Cambridge Local
Plan (CLP). ii.
The Applicant’s goal was to remove
a safety measure which would create a rat run between Coldham’s Lane and
Newmarket Road, which would create conflict between those who were walking and
cycling to use the shops. iii.
The image of the bollard which
members had been shown did not reflect the current physical position on site. iv.
Policy 80c of the Cambridge Local
Plan states that developments with road
access, must restrict through access to general motor traffic where appropriate,
give high priority to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists including their
safety and discourage inappropriate car based links within the network. The
access road in front of the retail park is precisely the place where there
should not be through access for general motor traffic. v.
The Applicant admitted they
measured 117 motor vehicles rat-running through the site over a few hours one
morning in December. The issue would only get worse when there are tail backs
on Newmarket Road or Coldham’s Lane or when the cut through gets added to GPS
navigation databases. vi.
Speed surveys in February,
indicated the majority of drivers exceeded the posted speed limit by a
considerable margin. vii.
The original rationale for the
condition preventing through traffic had not changed and there was no basis for
its removal. viii.
The retail park private road
should not be used as a relief road as referred to in the officer’s report, it
would put the public’s safety at risk. ix.
Asked the Committee to reject the
application under Cambridge Local Plan policy 80, asked to see immediate works
ordered to reinstate the bollard and that planning enforcement officers were
asked to assess costs against the Applicant for the previous non-compliance
with the planning condition. A photograph of the current
physical site layout was provided by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign
representative to the Principal Planner which he shared with the Committee. The Delivery Manager advised the Committee:
i.
That they needed to consider the planning merits of
the application rather than seek to punish the Applicant.
ii.
The Council’s view would be put to the Planning
Inspectorate in its Statement of Case as the Applicant had appealed against the
non-determination of the Application. Therefore, the decision on the Application
will be taken by the Planning Inspectorate, not the City Council today.
iii.
There was no evidence to support going against the Officer’s
recommendation on highway safety concerns. The Committee: A
vote on the Officer’s recommendation to express the Council’s approval of the Application
to the Planning Inspectorate was lost by 2 votes in favour to 6 against. Resolved (by 6
votes to 1 and 1 abstention) minded
to refuse the Application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the
following reason: The site forms a
private car park for the use of customers visiting the retail units within the
Cambridge Retail Park. The removal of the bollard encourages rat-running
through the site between Coldham’s Lane and Newmarket Road which are two busy
roads. This will introduce increased conflict between pedestrian and cycle
users of the car park and motor vehicles using the route as a rat-run which
will potentially compromise public safety, endangering pedestrians and
cyclists, increasing vehicular speeds within the car park and failing to
promote sustainable transport modes, cycling and walking. The proposal
therefore conflicts with policies 56, 80 and 81 of the Cambridge Local Plan
2018 and paragraph 110 of the NPPF 2019.
|
|||||||||||||
19/1141/FUL - 1 Fitzwilliam Road PDF 257 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Item withdrawn from agenda to allow a consultation to be carried out correctly. |
|||||||||||||
19/1257/FUL - 16 Moore Close PDF 163 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of a new 3-bedroom 2.5
storey dwelling and associated works at 16 Moore Close. The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following: · Resident
of 15 Moore Close. · Resident
of 17 Moore Close The representations covered the following concerns: i.
View from property would be of a
new house tacked onto 16 Moore Close. ii.
Overlooking. iii.
Increase in the number of bins
outside Objector’s doorstep. iv.
Parking and access: a.
Extra cars and commuting as a
result of the development. b.
Parked vehicles may block access
for emergency vehicles. v.
Lack of public transport to
mitigate the above. Councillor
Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation as follows: i.
A new condition requiring
compliance with M42 accessible homes. ii.
Amend Condition 10 to
maintain replacement trees for five years. iii.
Amend Condition 11 to provide
access holes for hedgehogs in boundary fencing. The amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Smart
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation seeking to explore a potential amendment to the front footpath
layout in conjunction with the Applicant, [to consult if necessary,] with
delegated authority for Officers to make the final decision on whether or not
to amend the condition. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 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 to officers,
to include the following further conditions and amendments to the recommended
conditions: a.
A new
condition requiring compliance with M4(2) accessible homes. b.
Amending
Condition 10 to maintain replacement trees for five years. c.
Amending
Condition 11 to provide access holes for hedgehogs in boundary fencing; and
iii.
Officers to explore the potential for amendment to the front
footpath layout with the Applicant, to consult if necessary and with authority
delegated to Officers on whether or not to amend the condition. |
|||||||||||||
19/0981/FUL - 156-160 Former Hamilton Lodge Hotel, Chesterton Road PDF 137 KB Minutes: Councillor McQueen left the meeting at this
point for another engagement. She did not take part in the discussion or
decision making for any items on the agenda from this point (inclusive)
forward. The Committee received an application for temporary change of
use as a construction compound for 9 months which would consist of the
following: storage of materials, parking for 10-15 vehicles, welfare block (hot
water and toilet facility), storage of skips. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for temporary 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. |
|||||||||||||
20/1065/TTPO - 3 Howes Place PDF 572 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application to grant consent for felling and pruning as
below, subject to replacement planting to mitigate canopy loss. i. TG1: Limes - Remove T1 to T5 to near ground level. ii. TG2: Limes - Re-pollard T6 to T10 at past points and retain on triennial re-pollard cycle. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative
requiring that vegetation be planted to replace any trees that die. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to grant consent for felling and pruning as proposed, subject to replacement planting to mitigate canopy loss, with an informative concerning a desire for replacement planting be added to replace any trees that die. |
|||||||||||||
20/1276/TTPO - 2 Howes Place PDF 573 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application to grant consent for felling and pruning as below,
subject to replacement planting. i. TG1: Limes - Remove T5 to T7 to near ground level. ii. TG2: Limes - Re-pollard at past points and retain on triennial repollard cycle. Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative
requiring that some vegetation be planted to replace any trees that die. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to grant consent for felling and pruning as proposed, subject to replacement planting, with an informative concerning a desire for replacement planting be added to replace any trees that die. |