Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from City Councillor Ward and County Councillor Wilkins.

Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Head of Legal Services should be sought before the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made. 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2012. 

The minutes of the 12 September 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

The applications for planning permission listed below require determination. A report is attached with a plan showing the location of the relevant site. Detailed plans relating to the applications will be displayed at the meeting.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a terrace of four town houses following demolition of existing semi-detached bungalows and garages.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Dr Wilson.

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                The representation was on behalf of various residents.

(ii)              Suggested there were errors in the Officer’s report:

·       The description of the application was inaccurate.

·       Representations from the Access Officer and Councillor Todd-Jones were not addressed.

·       Various representations were missing from the report, or reported erroneously.

(iii)            Expressed concerns regarding:

·       Access.

·       Parking (paving over verges would detract from the character of the area).

·       Overlooking of existing properties.

·       Overdevelopment of site.

Councillor Todd-Jones (Ward Councillor for Arbury) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                The application design would dominate neighbours and was out of character with the street.

(ii)              Referred to the Design and Access Statement included in the Officer’s report, plus Access Officer’s comments.

(iii)            Suggested there was an error in the Officer’s report listing four car parking spaces being available, trees and verges would have to be removed to enable this. Cllr Todd-Jones questioned whether Council car parking standards were met.

(iv)            Referred to the Head of Environmental Services comments included in the Officer’s report and questioned if access and refuse arrangements were appropriate.

(v)              Suggested the application did not meet Cambridge Local Plan standards.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

The scale, mass, and terraced form of the proposed houses would detract from the character of the street scene, contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

The application sought approval for a side and rear roof extension.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to images of the extension tabled at Committee.

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from the following:

·        Mrs Brundish

·        Mrs Atkins

The representations covered the following issues:

(i)                Questioned why the application was recommended for approval when the extension was subject to an enforcement order.

(ii)              Neighbours were concerned regarding Council enforcement/planning costs.

(iii)            Referred to a letter submitted to the Planning Officer setting out historic and current concerns regarding:

·       Overlooking.

·       Design and materials in the application did not match the character of the area.

·       Harassment and anti-social behaviour by 21 Belvoir Road occupants.

(iv)            Requested the application be rejected and the building be returned to its original format.

Councillor Price read out a statement on behalf of Ms Rolt, reiterating the concerns of Mrs Brundish (her Mother).

Councillor Boyce (Ward Councillor for West Chesterton) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                Asked the Committee to reject the application, to be consistent with other decisions regarding the site.

(ii)              Referred to p57 of the report pack and said the Juliet balcony would exacerbate existing overlooking issues.

(iii)            Referred to Planning Inspector’s concluding comments on p70 of the report pack regarding overlooking, and suggested this was a possible reason for refusal.

(iv)            Referred to anti-social behaviour by 21 Belvoir Road occupants, but suggested this was not a material planning consideration.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

The proposed extension, by reason of its very angular nature, and box-shaped mass, fails to reflect, or successfully contrast with, the form, materials and detailing of the existing building, contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of a dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling).

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Professor Bowie.

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                Felt the application would change the character of the neighbourhood and lead to difficult neighbour relations. Neighbours were already finding the situation stressful.

(ii)              Suggested demolition work for the application would adversely affect Professor Bowie’s house. Construction noise would negatively impact on his working hours at home, planning conditions would not help to mitigate issues.

(iii)            Suggested the rear access was too small for building work to occur.

(iv)            Suggested removal of the rear wall would impact on the structural integrity of Professor Bowie’s house.

Dr Wishard (Applicant’s wife) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission as per the agenda.

Reasons for Approval

1.      This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

East of England plan 2008: SS1, H1, T2, T9, T14, ENV6, ENV7, WM6

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/12, 4/10, 4/11, 4/13, 4/14, 5/1, 8/2, 8/6, 8/10

2.      The decision has been made having had regard to all other material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.

These reasons for approval can be a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision please see the officer report online at www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

The report sought authority to serve an Enforcement Notice in the event that a Certificate of Lawfulness is refused. The enforcement notice would be to address a breach of planning control, namely the unauthorised change of use of 70 Green End Road from its lawful planning use as part residential and part bed and breakfast accommodation.

Site: 70 Green End Road, Cambridge.

Breach: Unauthorised change of use

The Committee received a representation in relation to the report from Mrs Blair.

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                Neighbours supported the Officer’s recommendation to take enforcement action.

(ii)              The number of rooms authorised under the original site application were restricted due to the anticipated impact on neighbours. These issues had been realised through anti-social behaviour, noise/disturbance, frequent Police visits and a general negative impact on neighbours’ amenities.

(iii)            Neighbours had been distressed by the unauthorised change of use.

Councillor Kerr proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that the application for the Certificate of Lawfulness be brought back to North Area Committee for determination at a future date.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee:

Resolved (9 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation that delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to issue an enforcement notice under the provisions of S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for a material change of use from a part C3 dwellinghouse and part C1 bed and breakfast accommodation guest house to use in its entirety as a guesthouse within class C1 or as a House in Multiple Occupation (sui generis). The enforcement notice would contain the wording set out in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.4 of the Officer’s report (with such amendments as may later be requested by the Head of Legal Services).

The Certificate of Lawfulness would be brought back to North Area Committee at a future date.