Agenda and minutes

Councillor Price proposed the nomination of Councillor Todd-Jones as Chair. 

 

Councillor Boyce proposed the nomination of Councillor Nimmo-Smith as Chair. 

  

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) that Councillor Nimmo-Smith be Chair of North Area Committee for the ensuing year. 

 

 

Councillor Bird proposed the nomination of Councillor Todd-Jones as Vice Chair. 

 

Councillor Boyce proposed the nomination of Councillor Ward as Vice Chair. 

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) that Councillor Ward be Vice Chair of North Area Committee for the ensuing year. 

 

 

 

Apologies were received from City Councillors Kerr, O’Reilly, Tunnacliffe and Ward, and County Councillor Sales.  

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.

Councillor	Item	Interest
Manning	11/37/NACa 11/37/NACb	Personal: Had been in communication with local residents

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 to convert 5 Chapel Street into a small high quality guesthouse.

 

Mrs Ulyyan (Applicant) addressed the committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to approve planning permission subject to conditions.

 

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: T14, ENV6 and ENV7 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/7, 3/7, 4/10, 4/11, 4/13, 5/4, 6/3, 8/2, 8/6 and 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 an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing storage building.

 

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

·         Philip White

·        Michael Bond

·        Mrs Hunt

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

        i.            Opposition views not adequately reflected in officer report

      ii.            Close proximity to the public highway

    iii.            Inadequate bin and cycle storage

   iv.            Inadequate parking provision

     v.            Likely damage to road surface by construction vehicles

   vi.            Poor quality design

 vii.            Should be limited to 2 bedroom

viii.            Loss of amenity to neighbouring gardens

   ix.            Overshadowing and loss of light to neighbours

 

Chris Anderson (Applicants Agent) addressed the committee in

support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 1) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed dwellings by virtue of their height, scale, massing and location relative to Thrifts Walk would be a dominant and obtrusive form of development that would be out of character with the streetscene and the Conservation Area.  In so doing the development fails to respond positively to the site context and constraints, would not result in the creation of an attractive built frontage which would positively enhance the public realm adjacent to the site and would generally not have a positive impact on its setting in terms of location on the site, height, scale and form and its impact on the streetscene.  The development would also be harmful to a heritage asset in the form of the Ferry Lane Conservation Area.  The development is therefore contrary to policies ENV6 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan 2008 and policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/10, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to advice provided by PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) and PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)

 

2. The proposed development fails to make provision for off-street car parking, thereby increasing the demand for on-street car parking in area where competition for such parking is fierce.  In so doing the development fails to respond positively to the site context and constraints and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents and users of local services.  The development is therefore contrary to policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan 2008 and policies 3/4 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to advice provided by PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005).

 

3.The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for public open space and community development facilities in accordance with policies 3/7, 3/8 and 5/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and policies P6/1 and P9/8 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and as detailed in the Planning Obligation Strategy 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

The committee received an application for permission to demolish.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of an existing storage building.

 

 The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

The loss of the existing building from this site and the failure to replace it with an appropriate form would neither enhance nor preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The failure to provide detailed plans for redevelopment of the site that are acceptable to the Local Planning Authority, as is the case here, means that the demolition of the building is contrary to policy 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and to advice provided by PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (2010).