Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Small Hall - The Guildhall. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2014 & 7 January 2015 (attached separately). Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2014 & 7
January 2015
were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1633/REM : Land To The West And South West Of Addenbrookes Campus PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for reserved matters. The application
sought approval for the reserved
matters pursuant to outline approval 06/0796/OUT for a total of 59,821sqm
(Gross External Area excluding plant) Bitotech and
Biomedical Research and Development floorspace, to
include: The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from Arron Mahthai, Vikki
Semple and Lulu Agate. The representation
from Arron Mathai covered the following issues:
i.
Expressed concern over the use of substances which
could be used as chemical warfare agents. The officers had not received
sufficient information from the applicants on such usage to properly advise the
Committee.
ii.
The issue of use of dog experimentation had not
been properly addressed by the applicants or in the Officer report. There
should be a condition put on the application so that dogs cannot be used.
iii.
Protest was a material planning consideration that
the officers had not advised the Committee properly of, so the Committee could
not make an informed decision. The representation
from Vikki Semple covered the following issue:
i.
The applicant’s degenerative experiments on animals
were contrary to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 s41, s42, s71, s72. More information was needed on the proposed
use of animals. The representation
from Lulu Agate covered the following issues:
i.
There would be increased vehicular movements,
leading to more noise and pollution.
ii.
There was concern about waste disposal,
contaminated animal body waste and incineration was not ideal.
iii.
The new road to Addenbrookes
was not a positive contribution to the environment. iv.
There was increased demand on the water supply
because of all the development The Committee received a representation in support to the application
from Dr Osbourn (on behalf of the applicant). The Committee: Resolved
(by 6-0 with 1 abstention) to grant the application for reserved matters in accordance
with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report,
and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1648/REM: Homerton Business Centre, Purbeck Road PDF 217 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for reserved matters. The application sought approval for the reserved matters scheme (access,
appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 95 residential
units including affordable housing, together with associated landscaping (the
provision of a central amenity space and the reconfiguration of the existing
on-site balancing pond to the south), car and cycle parking, and associated
infrastructure works pursuant to application 13/1250/OUT. The Committee received a representation in support to the application
from Joanna Thorndike (agent). The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to grant the application for reserved matters in accordance with the officer recommendation, for
the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions and amended
condition 16 recommended by the officers. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Condition 16 (Cycle Parking) needs to read ‘Requires discharge, requires
further information’ instead of ‘Discharged’. |
||||||||||||||||
14-1811-FUL:35 Tenison Road PDF 54 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for a two-storey pitched roof extension
to the rear of the house, to provide an additional two bedrooms, one on each
floor. The proposed extension would be 5.4m deep, and
5.2m wide, abutting the common boundary with 37 Tenison Road. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Ruth Devermond. The representations
covered the following issues:
i.
Requested that the Committee reject the
application.
ii.
The proposed extension would have a serve adverse
effect on the neighbouring properties.
iii.
Would bring an increase in noise to the area. iv.
Stated that the area had an over concentration of
HMO’s (Housing in Multiple Occupation) filled with short term student
occupancy. ·
15 HMO on either side of the building, representing
27% of the local area.
v.
Many houses in the area have been reverted back to
families’ homes since the 2006 condition of eight residents per HMO. vi.
Stated the application goes 5/7 of the 2006 Local
Plan. vii.
The proposed extension would make a bad situation
in the area worse. The Committee received a representation in support to the application
from Mervyn Martin (applicant). Councillor Robertson addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The application did not comply with 3/4, 3/14 &
5/14 of the 2006 Local Plan.
ii.
Reported that none of the properties in the local
area had two stories extensions but only single extensions.
iii.
The proposed extension would spoil the character of
the location, over shadow neighbouring properties and would be visually
dominate. iv.
The proposed extended would block off the gap
between No 35 & No 37 Tenison Road
reducing the light to the side of both buildings and create a sense of
enclosure.
v.
Approval of the application could encourage similar
applications which would further spoil the appearance and character of the
area. vi.
The design does not respect the character of the
local area and the local amenity would be impacted. vii.
Already 24 HMO’s on this road and the number does
need to be increased. The Committee: Councillor Smart proposed that the term warden was changed to ‘resident
warden’ in condition 5. The Officer then proposed additional text be included at the end of the
condition 5 strengthen the condition (additional text underlined). Condition 5 would read as follows: ‘The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a Management
Plan for the building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the role of the resident
warden and contact details for neighbours, which shall be displayed on the
external front facade of the building at all times, and shall ensure that at
least one of the rooms is occupied by a warden at all times when the property
is in use as a House in Multiple Occupation. The use as a House in Multiple
Occupation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management
Plan. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006, policy 4/13)’ Resolved (7 Votes to 0, with 1
abstention) to accept the amended condition. Resolved (5 Votes to 3 votes)
to grant the application for full
planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out
in the officer report, and subject to the condition recommended by the officers
and the amended condition. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1649/FUL : Land To R/o 8 Montreal Road PDF 102 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The amended application sought approval for the
demolition of number 8 Montreal
Road and the erection of 1 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom houses. The Officer highlighted to the Committee additional standard conditions
CC80 and CC81A to remove permitted development rights for extensions and
additional windows before the start of the report. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Matter. The representations
covered the following issues: i.
The
application goes against 3/10,3/10c 3/4, 4/7 and 4/11 of the 2006 Local Plan
and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework ii.
The
Officer’s report states that the proposed application is similar to that of
application 14/0480/FUL, this is factually incorrect. iii.
The
proposed application can be similar to the previous application as there is now
an additional house on the plans. iv.
The
full permitted development is 33% bigger with a significant increase to the
roof profile with the number of bedrooms increasing from five to a total of
eleven. v.
Permitted
development had been removed as condition from application 14/0480/FUL to
prevent an increase which had not been referenced in the Officer’s report. vi.
Stated
than an appeal to increase the roofline for application 14/0480/FUL had been
dismissed by a Government Inspector the previous year. vii.
The
proposed application would violate the historical character of the area and
have a negative impact to the surrounding properties. viii.
The
development would sit on the boundary of the Mill Road conservation area and is
opposed by the Mill Road conservation society. ix.
The
plot for this application is not for suitable development as this would take
away all the garden land. x.
The
proposal would have an adverse impact, in terms of height, landscape and the
closing down of available views to neighbouring
houses which would dominate the local area. Amy Richardson (Applicant)
addressed
the Committee in support of the application. The following statement was read out from Ward Councillor Zoe Mogadhas:
i.
I am writing to support and highlight the concerns already raised
by the Romsey resident residing at 380 Mill Rd with
regard to the proposed development planned at the back of his family garden.
ii.
The proposed site was a locked in section of land previously used
as garden and allotments. Gardens back onto this fenced open space area from
Mill Road, Montreal Road, Montreal Square and Hobart Road. The garden at 380
Mill Road is a short section of lawn with a shed and will be particularly
affected by the new buildings proposed on this land.
iii.
The main objection is one of enclosure. The National Planning
Policy Framework supports the idea that protection be given
to the amenity of existing dwellings, they should not feel enclosed and
dominated.
iv.
Currently the residents sitting in either kitchen or garden have
an open feeling of skyline due to the distance of proximity to the next
property. The height of the proposed houses on this site will completely cut
out the feeling of space and light currently available to them.
v.
The original planning permission granted by East Area Committee to
build on this site was done with inaccurate measurements contained within the
report to committee. The report stated an 18 metre distance from the house at
380 Mill Rd to the new build property proposed when plans show the distance
will be more likely around 14 metres. Can planning officers clarify the
significance of this mistake in the granting of the original planning consent,
with reference to the section in the NPPF which looks to protect the amenity of
existing dwellings from the feeling of being enclosed and dominated?
vi.
The report before you suggests that the new proposal is similar in
scale to the original proposal but there is a significant increase in the
intensification from 3 to 4 houses, 2 storeys to 3 and 5 bedrooms to 11. vii.
On 9 January 2013, John Evans, planning officer, states
that permitted development rights was agreed to be removed from this site. An
inspector had visited this site and declined a request to raise the ridgeline
by 60cm saying the residents of no 378-380 would feel enclosed. Councillor Baignet addressed the Committee as
a Ward Councillor. The representations
covered the following issues: i.
Although
the report states that the development would not overlook Hobart Road there
would be a negative impact to this area with a domar
window at the back of the proposed property overlooking this road. ii.
Significant
invasion of privacy on the surrounding properties. iii.
The
proposed development would bring an increase to noise. iv.
Create
a loss of light to the neighbouring properties. v.
Expressed
concern that there would not be suitable access for emergency access to the
back of the properties due to the development on the corner of Mill Road and
Montreal Road. vi.
The
back gardens represent a haven to many of the surrounding residents which would
be affected by this development. The Committee: Resolved (5 Votes to 3 votes)
to grant the application for full
planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out
in the officer report, and subject to the condition and additional conditions
recommended by the officer. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1382/FUL : Land Rear Of 268 Queen Ediths Way PDF 164 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought refusal for the erection of a residential development consisting of 1 x 5 bedroom house and 6 x 4 bedroom houses, along with internal access road, car, cycle parking, with hard and soft landscaping. The Committee received written representation from Peter Mckeown in support of the application, who was also present to speak in support of the application. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Margaret
Prosser. The representations
covered the following issues: i.
Advised
the Committee that she was speaking on behalf of local Queen Ediths’ residents. ii.
The
refusal of the application supported the protection of the following: ·
City
boundaries ·
Green
open spaces ·
Wild
life ·
General
way of life. iii.
The
proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the City’s urban edge
of the surrounding area. iv.
Would
have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. v.
Stated
that the proposals were in direct conflict of the 2006 Local Plan and National
Planning Policy Guidelines. vi.
Acknowledged
that family homes but do not meet the housing needs set out by the Local
Plan. Councillor Ashton addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
This
application is not just about the loss of a few trees. ii.
A large
number of trees were destroyed before the application had been considered.
Officers were sent then to stop the work. iii.
The
area is of scientific interest, with a yearly walk to look at the bats and glow
worms. iv.
The
proposed development would have a detrimental impact to the local area. v.
Not the
right location for the development and would have an
negative impact on the neighbouring gardens. vi.
A
survey carried out from an independent consultant has determined that this
application does not meet the Local Plan Guidelines. vii.
The
proposed development would create an increase in traffic to the local area and
the proposed additional junction would be an increase hazard. The Committee: Resolved (7 Votes to 1 vote )
to refuse the application for full
planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out
in the officer report, and subject to the condition recommended by the officer. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: On page 228-229, the Recommendation should read: 1. REFUSE for the following reasons: 1.
The introduction of development on this edge of
city site, which has an important role in providing a buffer and transition
between the urban environment and designated protected sites to the east and
south, would, by virtue of its incongruous scale, intrusive and unsympathetic
design and angled layout of the buildings, have a significantly detrimental
impact on the character and appearance of the site, and setting of the city.
The proposed design would also appear out of character with the existing built
form along Queen Edith's Way and in doing so introduce an alien form of development
adjacent to Lime Kiln Road. For these reasons the proposed development in
conflict with policies 3/2, 3/4, and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006),
and government guidance the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 2.
The proposed development would result in the loss
of five trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders and several
others trees along the eastern and southern boundary which are group protected.
As a group these trees make a significant contribution to the character of this
edge of city site. Given the limited size of the amenity space associated with
the houses it is likely that future residents will be pressured into having to
remove/reduce the size of these and other trees. The removal of trees from the
site would expose the development to both the surrounding area and the
dwellings to the west in Queen Edith's Way. In so doing, the development would
have a detrimental effect on the character of the site and the contribution it
makes to the wider setting of the city and would adversely affect the
residential amenity of occupiers in Queen Edith's Way. The development would be
contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7and 4/4 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) and
Government Guidance in section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework
2012. 3.
The proposed development would due to the angled
layout of dwellings and scale of development, create a walled barrier which
would enclose the rear gardens of dwellings in Queen Edith's Way and have an
adverse effect on outlook from these dwellings. The rear elevation of the
proposed dwellings would also contain windows which would directly overlook the
rear gardens of the existing dwellings such that it would have an adverse
impact on the residential amenity of the existing residents in terms of
overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed development would create an
adverse sense of enclosure on the existing residents and cause loss of privacy
to gardens that are not currently overlooked. For these reasons, the proposed
development conflicts with policies 3/4 and 3/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2006). 4.
The proposed development does not make appropriate
provision for public open space, community development facilities, education
and life-long learning facilities, waste facilities, waste management and
monitoring in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/7, 3/8,
3/12, 8/3 and 10/1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Partnership (RECAP):
Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 2. In the event that the application is
refused, and an Appeal is lodged
against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority is sought
to allow officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligation required in
connection with this development |
||||||||||||||||
14/1820/FUL : 25 Cambridge Place PDF 62 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a change of use from offices (use class B1) to form a residential development consisting two 1 x bed flats and 3 x studios along with associated access arrangements and external alterations. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Lady Acland. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Speaking on behalf of herself and
her neighbours.
ii.
The property was currently tenanted and the tenants
wished to remain.
iii.
The impact on existing parking problems would be
unacceptable.
iv.
There was no provision for service vehicles and no
off road parking provision.
v.
Proposal contravenes both local and national
guidance on space standards.
vi.
Lacks amenity space. vii.
Requested that the Committee reject the application
or added conditions to limit short term lets. Peter McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. At the request of Councillor Blencowe, officers undertook to clarify the
position regarding visitor parking permits. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1 with 1 abstentions) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers and the additional informatives:
i.
The residents of the new residential units will not
qualify for Residents Permits (other than visitor permits) within the existing
Residents' Parking Schemes operating on surrounding streets.
ii.
The applicant is encouraged to ensure all future
tenants/occupiers of the flats are aware of the existing local car club service
and location of the nearest space. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1872/FUL : 39 Windsor Road PDF 41 KB
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a covered area to side of dwelling to
provide support to an existing first/second floor extension which was
inadequately supported. The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application from Mr Loades. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Was not initially against the application.
ii.
Had requested an adequate gap between the two
buildings to allow for maintenance.
iii.
Fences had been removed and digging work commenced
prior to the granting of permission.
iv.
Applicant had submitted three applications and the
plan had been changed repeatedly.
v.
Concerned about future building work.
vi.
Similar extension in the street had all allowed a bigger
gap between build lines and there was no need to build so close to neighbour. vii.
Extension was currently supported by poles. viii.
Requested that application be rejected until
concerns were addressed. 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1936/FUL : Land Between 2 And 3 Shaftesbury Road PDF 92 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
construction of a new dwelling on land Between 2 And 3 Shaftesbury Road
Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 8BW. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Chisholm. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Speaking on behalf of neighbours who object to the
proposal. ii.
Would be overbearing to neighbours. iii.
Use of stone was out of character with area. iv.
Angle of vision from first floor windows was
intrusive. v.
Conservatory to rear of building would become a
living area and intrude on neighbours. vi.
Adverse impact on neighbours. vii.
Final designs were unclear. Mr Poulson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. 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 report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the
officers. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1653/FUL : Land To Rear Of 551-553 Newmarket Road PDF 95 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of 3 dwellings on land to the rear of 551-553 Newmarket Road, Cambridge CB5 8PA. The Committee noted small errors in the text of the report. The Principal Planning Officer stated that it would be possible to amend the conditions to require obscured glazing to the first floor window that objectors considered to overlook neighbours. It had been suggested that there was a covenant on this land and the Principal Planning Officer stated that this was not a planning cionsideration. The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from the following: ·
Pauline
Turner, Mark Turner and Mark Howe The representations
covered the following issues:
i.
The process was unfair and objectors had not had
sufficient time to plan their objections.
ii.
The process had been uncomfortable.
iii.
Other application for development in the area had
been refused.
iv.
Proposed build line was very close to existing
buildings.
v.
Contradicts earlier decisions.
vi.
Would result in loss of amenity, light and privacy.
vii.
Would result in a feeling of enclosure.
viii.
Would dominate the area.
ix.
Would be closer to the existing properties than
suggested by the plans as they were based on original plans and did not show
current position.
x.
Unacceptable overlooking.
xi.
Plan contravenes Local Plan.
xii.
Would result in overlooking and loss of light. xiii.
Site plan was incorrect. xiv.
Nearby bungalow would suffer intrusion and loss of
daylight.
xv.
Loss of tranquil setting. xvi.
Adverse impact on wildlife. The Committee
expressed concerns about the vehicle access to the site. Concerns were raised
about cyclist and pedestrian safety when using the narrow access road. Concerns
were raised about access for emergency vehicles. The Chair suggested
deferring the application until the highways department had provided
satisfactory answers to the following questions: i.
Did the
width of the access road offer safe passage for all users? ii.
Was
there sufficient provision for cyclists and pedestrian users? iii.
Was the
width sufficient for service, emergency and construction vehicles? iv.
Would
the egress conflict with the nearby crossing or it’s
visibility? v.
Would
there be an impact on the nearby bus stop? The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 0, with 1 abstention) to defer the application. |
||||||||||||||||
14/1769/FUL : 220 Victoria Road PDF 49 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a change of use
of dwelling (use Class C3) to a 7 bed house of multiple occupation (sui
generis) to 220 Victoria Road. Mr Belton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. |
||||||||||||||||
Planning Code of Good Practice PDF 129 KB Presented By: Patsy Dell, Head of Planning Services Minutes: The Committee
received a report from the Head of Planning Services. The report referred to the updated Planning Code of
Good Practice which had been considered at the meeting of the Civic Affairs
Committee on 28/01/15. The Planning Code of Good Practice had been updated
using the model guidance provided by the Local Government Association and the
Planning Advisory Service. The Committee were advised that the Civic Affairs Committee had endorsed the approval of the updated Code and the report would then go to Full Council in March. The Head of Planning Services explained the changes to the document and advised that the Civic Affairs Committee had recommended that the Code be reviewed every three years. The Committee: Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded that the Code be reviewed every two years instead of every three years. Resolved (7 votes to 1 abstention) to:
i.
Endorse the approval of the updated Planning
Code of Good Practice.
ii.
Recommend
that the Code be reviewed every two years. Actions: The Council's Planning Code of Good Practice has been rewritten to reflect current arrangements and best practice for Members and officers when operating as the Local Planning Authority |