Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Porrer (Councillor Flaubert

attended as an alternate).

The minutes of the meetings held on 29 March 2023 and 26 April 2023 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The application was deferred to the next Committee.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought permission for a sports pavilion building and surrounding landscape to serve the sports facilities on the central park at Darwin Green 1.

Mr McLaren (Project Manager, Baarratt David Wilson) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation by way of an informative to increase the number of bicycle parking spaces for future use, due to the likely reduction of motor vehicles used in the city.

The informative was carried (by 6 votes to 2).

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation by way of an informative to organise the officials’ changing rooms into separated sections.

The informative was carried (by 7 notes to 0 with 1 abstention).

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, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to Officers), subject to:

      i.         Informative with regards to additional bicycle parking spaces in the future.

    ii.         Informative with regards to officials’ changing rooms to have separate sections.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought permission for the demolition on a bungalow with the subsequent erection of 3 dwellings. The site does not have any site constraints.

The Senior Planning Officer updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet as follows:

·      Paragraph 1.5: The end of this paragraph should read ‘officers consider proposed development to be in keeping with the character of the area and be of acceptable appearance.

New condition proposed:

·      The garage as indicated on plans 12D Rev D titled Plans & Sections of Proposed Dwellings, and plan 13B Rev B titled Elevations including Road Frontage shall be retained for the communal storage of 6 no. cycles for the three permitted dwellings only. The communal store shall not be used by persons who do not reside at the permitted dwellings.

Reason:

·      To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policy 82).

Councillor Smart proposed a condition to the Officer’s recommendation that the building is not built higher than 7.8 metres.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation by way of an informative to have the letterbox located in a more convenient location on the front door, for ease of access for post deliveries.

The amendments were accepted nem con (without a vote).

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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to Officers), subject to:

      i.         Condition with regards to the building not being built higher than 7.8 metres.

    ii.         Informative with regards to the letterbox being located in a more convenient location on the front door.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling in the garden of 25 Rawlyn Road. This application comes after a previous application for 3 terraced properties on a larger plot, comprising the garden of 25 Rawlyn Road and the land to the south and east, was dismissed at appeal on two grounds (21/04190/FUL); the resultant impact on the spacious and verdant character and overlooking to 25 Rawlyn Road. Since this appeal, the application site had been reduced to just the garden of 25 Rawlyn Road, the development reduced to one dwelling and the scale, massing, layout and design altered to reduce the dominance of the development on the sensitive corner location.

Mr Laurence Haslop (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee Manager read out the following statement on behalf of Abbey Ward Councillors Howard and Tong.

We are addressing the committee to raise objection on behalf of local residents due to the massing, scale, bulk of the proposal and its unsympathetic design. This would be at odds with the established character of the street scene and feel of the neighbourhood which is characterised by long lengths of semi-detached houses and open corners throughout the Whitehill Road estate. This proposal, if approved, would erode the open feel to the residential development and character and appearance of the area.

Unlike the other three quadrants of Barnwell, this area is the only one not to have a dedicated park within the heart of the estate, and therefore these small patches of green space take over the role of amenity space, which, although not protected, are of huge importance to local residents. This has been reflected by the large numbers of objections received to the previous proposal which included a provisional land sale from the city council, and to this most recent proposal, which received also a huge number of detailed objections.

We also have concerns about the proximity and bulk of the property in relation to the nearby two adjacent properties.

Secondly, the proposal is immediately on the boundary with recently funded Environment Improvement Project - wildflower meadow, night blooming scented plants and proposed masonry bee habitat - which would convert this piece of grass into a biodiversity hotspot and public amenity. The presence of a detached house immediately at the boundary of this would negatively impact this amenity for other local residents. The project is well supported by residents who also wish to incorporate a communal memorial bench for certain local families who lost loved ones during lockdown.

We urge the committee to reject this proposal due to the many breaches of the Greater Cambridge Local plan 2018 (policies 52, 55, 56, 57, 59).

Councillor Carling proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a construction method statement be provided to protect the open space being damaged by the development.

The amendment was accepted nem con (without a vote).

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) 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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to Officers), subject to the additional condition:

      i.         Condition with regards to construction method statement.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application was for full planning permission for the construction of a 1 bed bungalow. The bungalow is be of  3.7m in height where the building is to be partially set into the ground. The building is to be 7m wide and 7.6m long.

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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted).

Councillors Baigent and Bennett departed the meeting prior to this item.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application was for full planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling, following the demolition of the existing double garage, brick shelter and concrete shelter which were  no longer in use.

The Planning Project Officer updated their report by correcting an error on P217 (agenda report) in his presentation. The ward for this application was not Castle and Victoria but should have read West Chesterton.

Councillor Carling proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation by way of an informative that stated that residents of the new property would not be eligible for a parking permit.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation by way of an informative that no future occupants could remove the tree on site, even if it endangered the foundation.

The amendments were accepted nem con (without a vote).

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 with 2 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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to Officers), subject to:

      i.         Informative with regards to parking permit for the new property.

     ii.         Informative with regards to protection of tree. Delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft wording.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 No. replacement two storey dwelling.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Cherry Hinton Road:

      i.         Supported the redevelopment of the site but not the design brought to planning committee.

    ii.         Concerned are about overshadowing and loss of light.

   iii.         Stated that the design itself does not meet the BRE Guidance (British Research Establishment). 

  iv.         Stated that she believes that is does not meet Local Plan policy 57.

    v.         Had concerns regarding traffic management.

  vi.         The proposal overshadowed adjacent homes and would result in an overbearing building.

 vii.         There would be reduced light to habitable rooms of both neighbouring properties.

viii.         Did not believe the applicants daylight study is totally accurate.

  ix.         Submitted two independent skyline reports to Officers which would measure the loss of light. Stated that these have been given no weight in the Officer’s report.

    x.         Stated that both independent daylight studies she submitted failed BRE guidelines.

Mr Fleming (Applicant’s Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Griffin (Ward Councillor) sent in a written statement read by Committee Manager:

      i.         Please register my support for the public speaker’s concerns regarding the current plans for the development at 286 Cherry Hinton Rd.  I do believe that they have a good reason to be concerned about the loss of light at her home. Could the planning committee please take into consideration the Base Energy study that they have submitted. 

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to defer the application pending a possible site visit and receipt of Officer's comparison of the two light reports from the applicant and public objector.

Councillors Dryden and Flaubert departed prior to this item.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought the removal of condition 3 (green/biodiverse roof) of planning permission 22/04988/HFUL.

The Senior Planning Officer updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet as follows:

      i.         The site plan was amended showing the removal of the proposed widening of the dropped kerb, as the dropped kerb widening was not in the description of development or contained within the redline plan.

The Committee received representation from Councillor Smith on behalf the applicant who spoke in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 0 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

      i.         Was as exceptional case.

    ii.         There were material considerations: hardship.

The Committee received an application that sought the change of use of a garage building to laundry facility (Sui Generis) and associated storeroom to be used by St Andrews College, with minor external alterations to the unit. The application was being brought to the Planning Committee due to neighbour comments which cannot be conditioned.

The Senior Planning Officer updated their report by referring to the amendment sheet as follows:

Removal of condition 7, as these are internal changes and minor external changes, it was not considered necessary to the application.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Cherry Hinton Road:

      i.         Stated that the access lane to existing garage was only 3 metres wide and ran between residential homes. This was not wide enough for vans to turn around and exit.

    ii.         Stated it was a private lane and not public access driveway as stated in the application. It was intended for residents and resident’s guests only.

   iii.         Stated that in the application it states that it is a planning category C2 application, but should be category E, which was light industry.

  iv.         Stated that a laundry servicing a further six residential institutions would constitute commercial use.

    v.         Stated that closest residence to proposed laundry was only 1 metre away and as such was concerned about increased noise, pollution, traffic and fire risk.

  vi.         Stated that the issue of vibrations caused by the laundry had not been addressed.

 vii.         Asked what conditions would be put in place to ensure that the laundry would only be in use Monday-Friday, 9:00:am-5:00pm with no more than 3 deliveries per week.

Emma Penson (Applicant’s representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Smart advised Officer to change of wording to Condition 3 to include "no use on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays", as it currently only stated "no use on Sundays and Bank Holidays".

Councillor Carling proposed a condition to the Officer’s recommendation that states that in Condition 3 the hours of operation would be changed from 8:00am-5:00pm to 9:00am-5:00pm.

The amendment was carried (by 3 votes to 1).

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an alteration to Condition 5 of the Officer’s recommendation that requested an acoustics report describing decibel levels to come to Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes in consultation with Environmental Health.

The amendments were accepted nem con (without a vote).

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 (with delegated authority to Officers to make minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to Officers), subject to:

      i.         Condition with regards to alteration of the hours of operation.

    ii.         Condition with regards to acoustics report describing decibel levels.