Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Sarah Steed Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Holt, Orgee
and Tunnecliffe.
Councillor Harford and Moore attended as
alternates. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2016 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 17th
August 2016 were agreed and signed as a correct record. Change to published
agenda order Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his
discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the
reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda. |
||||||||||
C/5004/16/CC - Clay Farm PDF 456 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for the development of
a new 3FE primary school, and 52 place early years
centre/nursery with associated car, bicycle and scooter parking, hard play
areas, means of enclosure and landscaping.
. The Committee noted the amendments detailed on the amendment sheet. David Fletcher (Applicants Agent) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report: i.
Questioned whether the size of the sports pitches was
disproportionate to the to the size of playing area for the children and
whether community use of the facilities had been anticipated and between what
hours was community use likely to take place.
ii.
Asked whether there was a need to add a condition to the
application regarding the times the site would be available for community use
in case such use took place in the future. iii.
Noted and welcomed the comments and attention of the Design
Quality Panel. Requested that the normal Quality Panel section should be
included on this in reports. iv.
Questioned the level of bicycle parking available to staff at the
proposed site. v.
Asked whether there was a specific drop off area for parents to
use when dropping children off by car. vi.
Commented that walking to school was important for the children’s
health and should be promoted by the school. vii.
Queried the provision for disabled children to be dropped off at
the school safely and whether they could reach the school easily along public
footpaths. In response to Members’ questions Officers said the
following: i.
Confirmed that the applicant had worked closely with the head
teacher regarding the development of the site and the pitches met the
requirements set out by Sport England.
It was also confirmed that there would be no community use for the site
as the nearby secondary school would provide such facilities. ii.
Explained that due to the proximity of the surrounding housing
there were restrictions in place regarding the hours the sports pitches could
be used. iii.
Advised that the level of bicycle storage available at the site
for staff to use was compliant with the Local Plan standards. Bicycle use was to be encouraged and there
was some flexibility in the number of spaces that could be made available for
staff use. iv.
Confirmed that drop-off points did not normally feature in school
designs because the management of them would be the responsibility of the
school. v.
Confirmed that the car park would allow disabled children to be
dropped off easily and the Disability Consultative Panel were broadly
supportive of the plans. There was also step free access to the school from the
nearby Guided Busway stop. The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to grant the application in accordance with the officer recommendation
subject to the conditions set out in the report. Further
conditions required would be set by officers under delegated powers. |
||||||||||
16/1242/ADV - North West Cambridge Development Site, Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road. PDF 105 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
considered an application for the erection of two temporary illuminated totem
signs on Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road. The
signs would be erected on a temporary basis for a period of 3 years in order to
assist with the opening of the store. Brian Nearny (Applicants Agent) addressed the Committee in
support of the application. The
Committee made the following comments in response to the report: During the
course of discussion Members: i.
Highlighted the concerns of residents on the impact
on Huntingdon Road, the scale of the signs and their illumination. The location
of the signs within the Cambridge Green Belt in close proximity to a major
traffic light junction. ii. Commented that the
proposed signage defied the notion that the store was intended for use by local
people and would encourage other retailers in the area to make similar
applications. iii. Questioned whether a wayfinding scheme on site would represent an adequate
replacement to the proposed signage that was more akin to an out of town
supermarket. iv. Expressed concern
regarding the size of the signs. v. Expressed concerns
regarding the lack of consultation with Girton Parish
Council and that the signs were merely advertisements designed to attract
passing trade. vi. Drew attention to the
potential for increased traffic congestion that would be caused by the signs
attracting additional custom to the store and noted that another store on
Newmarket Road that was under construction did not have such large, illuminated
signage. In response to
Member comments officers explained that the visual impact of the sign would
reduce as foliage at the site matured and emphasised that the signs were
temporary and intended to assist the store in establishing itself. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to refuse planning permission contrary to
the officer recommendation for the following reasons; the proposed two totem
signs by reason of their prominent location, height, width and illumination
would be unduly strident and out of character with their surrounding context on
two key approaches into the City. As such the proposal would cause
significant harm to visual amenity, contrary to policies NW2 and NW4 of the
North West Cambridge Area Action Plan 2009, government guidance contained
within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 and the Town and
County Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 for the reason above. |
||||||||||
16/0442/FUL - Concrete Batching Plant, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DL PDF 176 KB Additional documents: Minutes: An application for full planning permission for the erection of
replacement plant, equipment and ancillary facilities at the Tarmac facility on
Cowley Road, Cambridge was considered by the
Committee. The Committee noted the amendments detailed in the updated conditions
sheet circulated at the Committee meeting.
During discussion Members: i.
Questioned
why the planned height of the silos was significantly higher than the ones they
were replacing if there was no intensification of activity at the site. ii.
Asked
whether planning permission would affect the wider re-development of the
Cambridge Northern Fringe East. iii.
Questioned
whether the proposed silos exceeded the existing height of nearby trees and
whether some visual screening would be provided. iv.
Highlighted
and expressed concerns regarding paragraph 6.4 of the report and appeared to be
contrary to planning policy. v.
Noted
that the site had been operational for approximately 20 years and was located
in an industrial commercial area of the city.
The demand for concrete within the city was high and the current plan
machinery was obsolete and required replacement. vi.
Questioned
whether the silos could be made wider but shorter in order to reduce the visual
impact of them but retain the same volume of storage vii.
Expressed
concerns regarding air quality and the amount of dust generated by the site. In response to Members’ questions Officers said the
following: i.
The
Applicant had confirmed there was no intensification of use of the site and the
current plant machinery was obsolete and required replacement. ii.
Explained
that there was a variety of scale of development in the area with several 2, 3
and 4 storey structures nearby. Officers
confirmed that the Area Action Plan (AAP) had not progressed to a point where
any weight could be given to the objectives of the AAP. The application therefore had to be judged on
its own merits and that a key consideration was that the use of the site for
concrete batching operation was long established. iii.
Confirmed
that the silos would be approximately the same height as the surrounding trees.
iv.Explained that due to
the specialist function of the machinery it was difficult to prescribe how the
silos should be designed v.
Confirmed
discussions had taken place with Environmental Health Officers and air quality
and noise pollution had been addressed to the satisfaction of Environmental
Health Officers. The application
represented an upgrade for the site and therefore be more effective at
controlling levels of pollution.
Officers drew the attention of Members to the Informative contained
within the report that clarified that the applicant would require approval of
variations to the existing environmental permit The Committee: Resolved (by 13
votes to 1 with 0 abstention) to grant the application in accordance with the
officer recommendation and subject to the conditions set out in the officer
report. |
||||||||||
AI/JS/39/117 - Public Footpath 117- running along the rear of Foster Road properties PDF 222 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for an order to permanently divert
a public right of way involving diversion of part of Public Footpath No. 117
Cambridge, required to enable further development of the Clay Farm site, Trumpington. During discussion Members: i.
Expressed
concern regarding the proposed footpath that would be 1 metre narrower than the
current footpath. Fencing of the
footpath would mean a loss of open green space and the use of the path by
residents visiting nearby allotments and dog walkers was highlighted. ii.
Expressed
concern regarding the path being narrower and the hazard it posed to cyclists In response to Members’ comments officers explained that similar
concerns had been raised at the Committee meeting in February 2016 where the
application was heard and approved. The
Joint Development Control Committee did not have the jurisdiction to re-visit
the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6
votes to 0 with 3 abstentions): a)
That
the Joint Planning Control Committee gives their approval that the proposed diversion
of Cambridge Footpath No. 117 meets the legislative tests set out in s.257 of
the Town and County Planning Act 1990. b)
That
this approval be reported to Cambridgeshire County Council, as agents for
Cambridge City Council and indicate an order should be made. That the final route be inspected by Cambridgeshire County Council as Highway Authority and certified as satisfactory before the Order comes into effect. |