Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: via Microsoft Teams
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Councillor Baigent: Personal, Cambridge Cycle Campaign. |
|
Application and Petition Details (20/04261/FUL / Jewish Synagogue 3 Thompsons Lane Cambridge CB5 8AQ) Application No: 20/04261/FUL Site Address: Jewish
Synagogue 3 Thompsons Lane Cambridge CB5 8AQ Description: Demolition of existing Synagogue and Jewish
Community facility and erection of a new Synagogue and Jewish Community
facility including replacement parking spaces and new cycle storage and
associated works Applicant: The Trustees Agent: David Ward, R H Partnership Address: 94 Chesterton Road Cambridge CB4
1ER Lead Petitioner: Resident of Thompson’s Lane Case Officer: Saffron Loasby Text of Petition: We the undersigned
petition the council to Establish a Development Control Forum in respect of
planning application 20/04261/FUL Residents support application
20/04261/FUL (redevelopment of synagogue), but petition for a Development
Control Forum to discuss concerns & remedies. Background
noise level doubled in violation of pre-planning stipulations and Council
Policies. Moreover, at time of measurements made by out-of-date acoustic
report, there existed a disputed source of other noise pollution, thus
background noise level unrepresentative of quieter current situation. Proposed
Remedy - acoustic report be updated; with current designs; background noise
levels re-measured excluding disputed neighbouring restaurant disturbance;
noise estimates at bedroom heights. Noisy,
unshielded, roof-mounted mechanical equipment planned near neighbouring bedroom
windows in grade II listed residential dwellings. 3 large units < 10 metres
from Portugal Place & The Old Vicarage bedrooms, at same height with no
acoustic screening. Sound power levels estimated up to 86 dBA, comparable to
power lawn mower. Proposed Remedy - propose deletion of roof-mounted equipment;
noisy plant confined to interior. Consider
making planning consent subject to following conditions: 1 – CUJS enter into Undertaking to operate the facility in a manner
befitting more intensive use: • Single point of contact be
established, with formal role in governance; local community access to
accountable parties with authority to address concerns; 2 –
‘Winter Garden’ Roof Terrace with retractable roof, directly overlooks
neighbours’ bedrooms. Roof only allowed to be open from 10:00 to 21:00, no
music to be played in the winter garden at any time when roof open, nor other
noisy activities e.g. film night, but excluding religious observances requiring
opening of roof. Employ frosted glass all sides. 3 –
Proposal impacts rights of way of The Old Vicarage, and compromise has been
negotiated. However access to eastern boundary wall
blocked by proposed security fence. CUJS to enter into
Undertaking to allow access to eastern boundary for purposes outlined in
pre-existing Deed, on basis not more restrictive than that to date. 4 –
Smokers may congregate outside the proposed gate which is directly by main
entrance to The Old Vicarage, or to the east of the building but adjacent to
windows of Portugal Place. Smoking not to be allowed in vicinity of
neighbouring properties nor in Roof Terrace. 5 – Proposed modifications to
Construction Management Strategy regarding: Minutes: Application and
Petition Details (20/04261/FUL / Jewish Synagogue 3 Thompsons Lane Cambridge
CB5 8AQ) Application No: 20/04261/FUL
Site Address: Jewish
Synagogue 3 Thompsons Lane Cambridge CB5 8AQ Description: Demolition of existing Synagogue and
Jewish Community facility and erection of a new Synagogue and Jewish Community
facility including replacement parking spaces and new cycle storage and associated
works Applicant: The
Trustees Agent: David Ward, R H Partnership Address: 94 Chesterton Road
Cambridge CB4 1ER Lead Petitioner: Resident of Thompson’s Lane Case Officer: Saffron
Loasby Text of
Petition: We the undersigned
petition the council to Establish a Development Control Forum in respect of
planning application 20/04261/FUL Residents support application 20/04261/FUL
(redevelopment of synagogue), but petition for a Development Control Forum to
discuss concerns & remedies. Background noise
level doubled in violation of pre-planning stipulations and Council Policies.
Moreover, at time of measurements made by out-of-date acoustic report, there
existed a disputed source of other noise pollution, thus background noise level
unrepresentative of quieter current situation. Proposed Remedy - acoustic
report be updated; with current designs; background noise levels re-measured
excluding disputed neighbouring restaurant disturbance; noise estimates at
bedroom heights. Noisy, unshielded,
roof-mounted mechanical equipment planned near neighbouring bedroom windows in
grade II listed residential dwellings. 3 large units < 10 metres from
Portugal Place & The Old Vicarage bedrooms, at same height with no acoustic
screening. Sound power levels estimated up to 86 dBA, comparable to power lawn
mower. Proposed Remedy - propose deletion of roof-mounted equipment; noisy
plant confined to interior. Consider making
planning consent subject to following conditions: 1 – CUJS enter into Undertaking to operate the facility in a manner
befitting more intensive use: • Single point of
contact be established, with formal role in governance; local community access
to accountable parties with authority to address concerns;
• Suitable signage
urging visitors to respect local residents when entering and leaving;
• Noiseless gates,
secured against wind, kept in this condition; •
Overnight stay of people not permitted. 2 – ‘Winter Garden’
Roof Terrace with retractable roof, directly overlooks neighbours’ bedrooms. Roof only allowed to be open from 10:00 to 21:00, no music to be played in the winter garden at any time when
roof open, nor other noisy activities e.g. film night, but excluding religious
observances requiring opening of roof. Employ frosted glass all sides. 3 – Proposal impacts
rights of way of The Old Vicarage, and compromise has been negotiated. However,
access to eastern boundary wall blocked by proposed security fence. CUJS to enter into undertaking to allow access to eastern boundary
for purposes outlined in pre-existing Deed, on basis not more restrictive than
that to date. 4 – Smokers may
congregate outside the proposed gate which is directly by main entrance to The
Old Vicarage, or to the east of the building but adjacent to windows of Portugal
Place. Smoking not to be allowed in vicinity of neighbouring properties nor in
Roof Terrace. 5 – Proposed
modifications to Construction Management Strategy regarding: • Standard working hours in section 2.2 are
Mon to Thu 8am to 6pm, inconsistency with section 3.9 (Mon to Fri); • Dust assessment summary in section 4.1
incorrectly noted as low/negligible, based on erroneous Appendix D. Sensitivity
of people to dust soiling effects assessed High, sensitivity of people to
health effects of PM10 assessed High; • Propose relocation of site welfare unit,
or additional provision of impermeable barrier, or relocation of toilet &
shower facilities for consistency with tree survey recommendations • Propose monitoring of ground water levels; • Propose reference party wall awards &
neighbours’ rights; • Residents sandwiched between the
contemporaneous Car Park work-site & proposed
site, suffering superimposition of noise & dust, requiring additional
monitoring. All local residents will suffer road disruption at both ends of
only vehicular entrances to area, requiring additional coordination. 6 – Fire risk
assessment to be carried out and fire suppression equipment installed. 7 - Trees T001&2&4
pose risk to life and property. 4&5 have suffered recent trauma with
council consent, but further cropping proposed of canopy (5) and roots
(4&5). No trees are within site boundary, belong to neighbours; convince
neighbours that the proposed tree damage is within risk tolerance. Case by Applicant’s Agent David
Ward (R H Partnership Architects, Director) made the following points:
i.
Provided
a summary of the application. ·
The site
catered for 1200 religious and non-religious students. ·
The
building was used seven days a week from early morning to late night. ·
As well
as a religious function there was also a social and cultural purpose; Friday
nights were the most popular where up to 100 students would meet. ·
Built in
1937, the building sat in a conservation area but was not listed and was
currently a single storey with a pitched roof. ·
The
building did no longer meet the use of the community. ·
The
proposal was to demolish the building and replace with a two-storey building,
moving the front of the building closer to Thompson Lane. ·
The
front elevation would be of brick and the roof zinc. ·
The
three major elements would be the synagogue, the community space and kitchen.
The community space and synagogue would have a moveable wall to meet the
requirements ·
The
building occupied the rear of the site closest to Portugal Place. ·
Access
into the Old Vicarage (Thompson Lane) with a parking space for the Old
Vicarage. The application site included this parking space, this space was
preserved. ·
A
basement would be accessed from the social space.
ii.
Around
the site was Wyng Gardens, Portugal Place, St
Clements Church, the Old Vicarage, with the Cambridge School of Visual Arts
sitting on the northern edge of the site.
iii.
Properties
on Portugal Place overlooked the rear of the site where the views of the
synagogue were described as not noticeable’ as from Bridge Street and the
Cemetery, hidden by trees. iv.
The Old
Vicarage sat on the southern boundary of the site and acknowledged that long
views of the Old Vicarage needed to be preserved.
v.
Two
public consultation meetings had been held with residents (2018 and 2019) and
two zoom meetings since the application had been submitted. vi.
Response
to the issues raised in the petition were as follows (a- m): a)
Background
noise: ·
The
windows to the proposed building would not have to be opened due to the design
and ventilation of the building. ·
The
plant ventilation of the plant would not run at night. ·
Exploring
the option of moving the roof mounted plant to the basement at the front of the
building. This would supply heat to the building through floor trenches. ·
The
ventilation would be supplied by the mechanical heat recovery ventilation units
which would be placed around the building taking the air in. This would be
circulated throughout the building, extracted to the outside and recover the
heat until the air was exhausted. ·
Ducts up
from the basement below would fix to the louvers on the elevations. ·
The MVHR
units would be connected to grills in the external walls, these grills would
not be placed on the elevation facing Portugal Place. ·
The
plant was still in the development but assumed 4m floor to floor in the
basement. ·
Was
currently in discussion with acoustic engineers to ensure the louvers were
within the set noise limits. b)
Single
Point of Contact: ·
This
will be established c)
Signage: ·
Signage
would be placed around the building to remind students to be respectful of
their neighbours when leaving the building. d)
Noiseless
gates ·
To be
secured against wind. e)
Overnight
stay of people. ·
Would
not be permitted. f)
Winter
Garden: ·
Roof
only allowed to be open from 10:00 to 21:00. ·
No music
would be played at any time when roof open, nor other noisy activities. ·
Frosted
glass to be used around all sides. ·
Investigating
the possibility of changing the roof from glass to solid roof with opening roof
lights. g)
Right of
Way of the Old Vicarage: · This would be retained. h)
Smoking
on site: · No smoking on site could be permitted. i)
Construction
Management Strategy · Required further consideration but had
submitted information to planning officers for review. j)
Trees: · Agreed that trees around the site should
remain in good health. An arboricultural impact assessment had been submitted
for review. k)
Party
Wall: · Agreed there needed to be a party wall
agreement. l)
Car Park
Work: ·
Could
not advise when the work would be undertaken.
m) Fire
Risk Assessment: ·
This
could be undertaken. vii.
In
summary the applicant agreed on the following issues raised by the petitioner: ·
The use of the winter garden ·
Right of way ·
Party Wall and Trees ·
When
programmes of work were established on the car park works and synagogue
development further discussion would be undertaken with residents. viii.
Wished
to continue the good working relationship with residents and welcomed feedback
and support from the planning authority. Case by Petitioners
i.
Petitioners were in support of development subject
to further changes that it was hoped would be addressed.
ii.
The site was surrounded by grade II listed
buildings, one of which was the oldest churches in Cambridge and another, the
oldest timber framed building in Cambridge, with period properties along
Portugal Place.
iii.
Through continued engagement with the applicant the
one hundred concerns presented over the last two years had been addressed with
only a handful outstanding. Some of which had been addressed in the applicant’s
presentation.
iv.
The three major issues of concern were: a)
Background noise · The acoustic report
had been based on an outdated design, there had been no night-time attenuation
of noise. · The noisiest plant
would have been 10m from bedrooms on Portugal Place and The Old Vicarage. · Requested an
updated acoustic report based on the latest design which should also include
the placement of the louvres. · Proposed a new
background measurement at new receptor locations. The new development should
not exceed the newly measured background. · Consider glazing
design around the winter garden. ·
Welcomed the applicant’s comments that the roof
mounted plant would be relocated to the basement. ·
Recommended the plant should be placed at the north
west corner of the footprint, elongated east west away from the foundations of
the Old Vicarage. b)
Height, bulk, and massing. ·
Pleased to note the street scape had been preserved
in front of the development, the chimney stacks of the Old Vicarage and St
John’s Chapel. ·
Would lose 4 of 6 north-facing locations at the Old
Vicarage due to the building brought forward but this was a reasonable
compromise. ·
Those in Portugal Place would now have a two-storey
building prior to the original single storey which would have more of an impact
on residents. ·
No’s 29-23 Portugal Place were owner occupied ·
Ask for updated drawings and visuals regarding the
update on views from all window levels using professional photos. ·
Would like the applicant to repair and reinforce the
boundary wall with Portugal Place. ·
Requested the applicant to consider the following: § Further lowering
eastern roofline. § Elimination of flat
roof now roof mounded equipment has been deleted and have a bevelled edge. § Consider
elimination of some first-floor volumes, e.g. north-east egalitarian Worship/
quiet study area. § Alternative roof
materials facing Portugal Place. The zinc roof would obscure a large amount of
the views from Portugal Place looking out to Thompson Lane. § Consider
elimination of some first-floor volumes, e.g. north-east egalitarian Worship/
quiet study area. ·
Reminded the Forum of the 1977 planning application;
the scheme was rejected on the basis that the proposed replacement was
detrimental to the visual amenities of this part of the conservation area. c)
Proposed planning conditions which required written
confirmation from the applicant. ·
Single point of contact to be established as it was
difficult for neighbours to contact the current governance structure. ·
Suitable signage to ensure the noise levels were
kept down when entering, leaving, and loitering around the site. ·
Noiseless gates to be kept as a condition. ·
Overnight stay of people not permitted. · Access to eastern
boundary for purposes outlined in pre-existing Deed is permitted. The right of
way was not in dispute, but it would not be taken away by the erection of the
proposed gate. ·
Planning condition was to be applied to the winter
garden. Roof only allowed to be opened from 10.00 to 21.00. No music to be
played at any time when the roof is opened or other noisy activities excluding
religious observances requiring opening of the roof. Frosted Glass is used on all
sides with suitable acoustic properties. ·
Planning condition for smoking not to be allowed in
the vicinity of neighbouring properties or on the roof terrace. ·
Construction Management Planning to be updated and
kept evergreen between the Council, the applicant, and residents. Proposed
modifications to the following: §
Standard
working hours in section 2.2 were Mon to Thu 8am to 6pm, inconsistency with
section 3.9 (Mon to Fri) §
Dust
assessment summary in section 4.1 incorrectly noted as low/negligible, based on
erroneous Appendix D. Sensitivity of people to dust soiling effects assessed
High, sensitivity of people to health effects of PM10 assessed High §
Proposed
relocation of site welfare unit, or additional provision of impermeable
barrier, or relocation of toilet & shower facilities for consistency with
tree survey recommendations §
Propose
monitoring of ground water levels § Propose reference party wall awards &
neighbours’ rights § Residents sandwiched between the
contemporaneous Car Park worksite & proposed site, suffering
superimposition of noise & dust, requiring additional monitoring. All
residents would suffer road disruption at both ends of only vehicular entrances
to area, requiring additional coordination between the council and 2 developers § Fire risk
assessment to be carried out before the application was considered. However, if
this was not possible it should be made clear this should be subject to a
successful risk assessment showing there was no incremental risk to the Old
Vicarage. § Requested a
response from the Tree Officer on the works to be undertaken to the trees and
consider balanced cropping of canopy to reduce the risk of becoming over heavy
on one site. This should be stipulated as a planning condition. Case Officer’s Comments
i.
Application
received 16 October 2020 with neighbours notified of the application on 2
November and site notice advertising the application placed on 13 November.
ii.
Representation
had been received from 9 residents and Maudling College. The main objections
were: · Over development. · Principle Development: Would harm the conservation area,
neighbouring listed buildings and amenities. · Character design and appearance: The
development was out of scale with its immediate neighbours, too high and
overbearing. · Impact of residential amenities: Overbearing
in terms of mass to those occupants living in Portugal Place and the Old
Vicarage. · Loss of privacy and overshadowing. · Would lead to an increase in noise
disturbance and light pollution to neighbouring residents. · Highway issues: Based on the complexity of
the construction of the car park site. The impact of the construction on
neighbouring occupiers and the effect of the potential road closures would have
on the surrounding areas. · The impact the development would have on the
neighbouring trees inside and outside of the site:
iii.
The
following policy consultations had been received: · Local Highways Authority: supported the
application subject to the condition for a separate traffic management plan;
advised against surface water runoff into the highway and weight limitation on
the road and surrounding network. · Environmental Heath: Requested further
information on plant machinery and equipment, noise assessments, artificial
lighting, installation, noise pollution and site investigation strategy. There
were ongoing discussions on what can and could not be conditioned. · Sustainability Officer: Supported the
application subject to receiving additional information on the proposed heat
pumps, water efficiency and the roof plan details. · Drainage Officer: Supported the application
subject to a condition regarding infiltration testing. · Conservation Officer: Supported the
application subject to the conditions regarding sample and materials and
required further information on the roof design. The impact on the Old vicarage
was acceptable with views of the chimney stack retained. The new synagogue
would make an improved contribution to the street scene. iv.
Waiting
comments from the following consultees: · Urban Design Team. · Ecology Department. Ward Councillor Comments.
i.
Congratulated
the residents on their work liaising with the applicant / agent; the
application had been improved over the last few months in response to comments
made.
ii.
Welcomed
the development but there were outstanding issues which needed to be addressed
which were: · A single point of contact responsible for the
day to day running of the Synagogue who would be able to respond to residents
when required. · Preservation of the views particularly the
Old Vicarage on Thompson Lane. · Further discussion was required regarding the
loss of views concerning the listed buildings on Portugal Place; professional
photos were required. · Welcomed the relocation of the SLC pumps
being moved but further information was required. · Reduction in roof height and bulk of the
proposed building was necessary.
iii.
Noted a
few developments had been proposed for the surrounding area and it would be
beneficial to align all the works to minimise disruption to residents. Members Questions and Comments
i.
Stressed
the importance of keeping the dialogue open between residents and the applicant
/ agent; thanked the applicant / agent for their continued consultation and
willingness to listen to resident’s proposals.
ii.
Congratulated
the petitioner’s level of detail regarding their petition.
iii.
Stated a
site visit would be beneficial for Planning Committee members.
iv.
Expressed
concern regarding the loss of light into the rear of Portugal Place.
v.
Noted
the importance of retaining the trees where possible.
vi.
Requested
further information on sustainable drainage due to the amount of open space
that would reduce on the site.
vii.
Advised
that the term ‘Winter Garden’ was misleading.
viii.
Questioned
how the plants on the first floor would be maintained.
ix.
Stated
the excavation of the basement should be as shallow as possible.
x.
Suggested
a possible swap with Cambridge University to relocate to the existing building
in return for land outside of the city centre where an all-purpose building
could be housed; or sell the site to fund a build elsewhere.
xi.
Welcomed
the sustainability that had been proposed by the applicant.
xii.
Questioned
if a zinc roof would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
xiii.
Would
hope that verified views and overshadowing diagrams would be produced for the
Planning Committee to consider what, if any impact, the proposed development
would have on the neighbouring properties.
xiv.
Queried
if a second acoustic assessment would be undertaken for the new heat pumps.
xv.
Asked if
the Case Officer could advise which conditions were considered possible to the
application.
xvi.
Believed
there was opportunity to reduce conflict for the following issues, however
important to recognise that not all requests could be done under planning
conditions: · Consider how much of the trees should be cut
back to let in light but was also important to retain privacy. · Noise and congregation on site including
smoking on site. · Views out of the site and into the site.
xvii.
Enquired
why car parking was necessary on site.
xviii.
Sought
clarification on who undertook the daylight and sunlight survey. In response the Applicant /Agent said the
following:
i.
It was
important to ensure the large trees which were off site would not be compromised
by the development.
ii.
Trees on
the south of the development did cast a lot of shadow to both the site and
Portugal Place. Had suggested to residents these could be trimmed back to
increase the daylight.
iii.
Would
consider producing shadow diagrams that did not include the trees. iv.
Highlighted
the conclusion of the daylight and sunlight report submitted with the
application; overall the impact of the proposed development was small and full
compliant with default BRE criteria.
v.
Alternative
locations had not been considered as the site was well located and convenient
for students; its purpose was to create a centre for the students. vi.
The
proposal was to keep the current three car parking spaces, one was a mobility
space, the other for deliveries and the third belonged to the Old Vicarage. The
removal of the spaces had not been considered.
vii.
The
daylight and sunlight survey had been carried out by a specialist company; the
slides were not included as the presentation had responded to the issues
highlighted in the petition. viii.
Advised
that updates would be submitted on daylight and sunlight report, acoustic and
tree reports. ix.
The flat
roof over the cycle store would be a green roof but not on the main building.
The removal of the roof plant could now offer an opportunity for a brown or
blue roof. The Petitioners said the following:
i.
Members
of the Planning Committee would be welcome to visit properties on Portugal
Place to look at all aspects of the site. Significant to note that Portugal
Place was not flat so each property would have a different view.
ii.
Important
to preserve the trees in an urban environment.
iii.
The
daylight and sunlight report suggested the biggest obstruction to the daylight
(particularly for Portugal Place) was the bulk of the trees rather than the
building itself; therefore, pruning of the trees on both sides would be
beneficial. · Recent work had taken place on two of the
trees undertaken by the City Council so had experienced “recent trauma”. iv.
Had
never suggested that the site should be relocated but that the building line
should be set further back from the street, however, this was not possible.
v.
The Old
Vicarage car parking space on the site was historical and provided vehicle and
pedestrian access to the rear of the Old Vicarage. The Chair noted the
request for a site visit and would take this forward and agreed it would be
beneficial for members of the Planning Committee to visit the gardens on
Portugal Place. After Member
questions had taken place the Chair recommended the Forum hold a discussion
around the proposed conditions as put forward by the petitioners: a)
Single
point of contact for residents. § The Chair suggested this could be outlined as
a condition in a management plan as part of the planning permission. § The agent advised that this was being drafted
but the applicant needed to confirm §
The
Petitioner advised that there was an issue with the legal status and was unable
to find a counterpart to sign the undertaking, hence why this should remain as
a planning condition. §
Bin
store to be installed but should be included in the management plan. b)
Old
Vicarage Access. ·
Cambridge
University Jewish Society enter the undertaking with the Old Vicarage to allow
access to eastern boundary for purposes outlined in pre-existing deed, on a
basis not more restrictive than to date. § The Chair advised that this fell outside the
remit of what could be secured within planning conditions as it related to a
legal right of access within a non-planning deed. This would need to be
resolved outside the planning process. c)
Winter
Garden Rood Terrace. · Roof only allowed to be open from 10:00 to
21:00. · No music to be played at any time when roof
open not other noisy activities excluding opening of
roof. · Employ frosted glass on all sides with
suitable acoustic properties. § The agent advised there was no objection to
the conditions proposed and would be in the application document. § The Planning Officer would review the
comments made by the Environmental Health Officers in relation to the winter
garden. § The Chair advised that these were not unusual
proposals and could be secured by planning condition. d)
Smoking. · Not be allowed in vicinity of neighbouring
properties or on the roof terrace. § The applicant was supportive of a non-smoking
policy and could impose the policy on site but could not stop smoking in a
public place such as on the street. § The Chair confirmed that it was not within
the planning remit to stop smoking in the vicinity of neighbouring properties.
Suggested there could be a commitment to manage the smoking outside of the site
in the management plan. § A comment was made that if there was not a
designated smoking area this could push those individuals who smoked to go out
to the surrounding streets. e)
Construction
Management Strategy.: · Standard working hours in section 2.2 are Mon
to Thu 8am to 6pm, inconsistency with section 3.9 (Mon to Fri) · Dust assessment summary in section 4.1
incorrectly noted as low/negligible, based on erroneous Appendix D. Sensitivity
of people to dust soiling effects assessed High, sensitivity of people to
health effects of PM10 assessed High. · Propose relocation of site welfare unit, or
additional provision of impermeable barrier, or relocation of toilet &
shower facilities for consistency with tree survey recommendations · Propose monitoring of ground water levels · Propose reference party wall awards &
neighbours’ rights · Residents sandwiched between the
contemporaneous Car Park worksite & proposed site, suffering
superimposition of noise & dust, requiring additional monitoring. All local residents will suffer road disruption at both ends of
only vehicular entrances to area, requiring additional coordination between the
council and 2 developers § The Chair advised that piling was a standard
condition when a basement was involved in the construction work. The
inconsistency in hours would be investigated. Party wall agreements would not
be covered within the management strategy but could dealt with by informative. § The applicant confirmed the new construction
management plan reference the construction of the basement. f)
Fire
Risk Assessment. § The Chair advised that this would be a
building control matter and not covered by planning condition but as an
informative that a fire risk assessment should be undertaken. g)
Trees. · Council Consultee responsible for trees to
respond. · Consider balanced cropping of canopy to
reduce risk of becoming over-heavy on one side. · Stipulate as Planning Condition. § The agent confirmed an arboricultural impact assessment
had been submitted which concluded ‘there were no overt or overwhelming
arboricultural constraints that could be reasonably sighted to preclude the
proposed construction’. § It was suggested the impact assessment should
be looked at by the Tree Officer to determine what impact the proposed
development would have on the trees. If the trees were protected the applicant
would have a responsibility to the trees even if they were on neighbouring
land. § The agent suggested that there was a tree
preservation order on the trees, the Council would have the power to serve
notice on the owners to trim them and / or carry out maintenance to perverse
them. § The Chair advised that the Tree Officer was
yet to respond to the proposed application, but the issues raised would be
passed on for their information. § The petitioner reported the Tree Officer had
confirmed Trees1,2,3 and 4 were the Council’s responsibility as they were in
the historic churchyard; the Council had accepted responsibility of maintaining
the land. Tree 5 belonged to Homerton College. Summing up by the Applicant’s Agent i.
Welcomed the meeting and discussion around the
proposed development. ii.
Would continue the good working relationship with
the petitioners and residents. iii.
Acknowledged further work was required on the
proposed application, but this was already being looked at. This included the
movement of the roof plant to the basement and the views from Portugal
Place. iv.
Most of the issues outstanding were capable of
resolution but some of the issues raised were for the planning officers and
planning committee to consider. Summing up by the Petitioners i.
Felt an alignment with the developer had been
achieved on background roof mounted equipment in the process to the Development
Control Forum; agreed with the agent that resubmitted plans should be submitted
rather than restarting the application process. ii.
Agreed to the development of the basement but should
not disrupt neighbouring foundations; would like further discussion on what
proposals would be done to monitor the situation. iii.
Further discussion was required with the agent /
applicant on the height, bulk, and massing issue. iv.
Welcomed the discussion on the suggested planning
conditions and anticipated there be would proposals brought forward as recommended
by the Case Officer. v.
Welcomed additional discussion on the scale up of
the building and the proportions within the space. vi.
Reiterated the invitation to visit the properties on
Portugal Place to look at the incline that they sat on and the changes in the
view. vii.
Advised that a detailed description of the petition
had been placed on the planning portal. Final Comments of the Chair
i.
Summarised
the main issues discussed.
ii.
Suggested
a meeting between the case office, the applicant and petitioner to discuss some
of the issues raised if required.
iii.
Would
encourage the applicant to keep in touch with the petitioner throughout the
process. iv.
Would
recommend a site visit for the Planning Committee when the application comes to
the Committee for consideration.
v.
Notes of
the Development Control Forum would be made available to the relevant parties
and published on the City Council. vi.
A copy
of the minutes would be attached to the Planning Officer’s report when the
application would be considered at a future Planning Committee. |