Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Planning Committee
operates as a single committee meeting but is organised with a three part agenda
and will be considered in the following order: ·
PART ONE Major Planning Applications Start
time: 10am ·
PART TWO Minor/Other
Planning Applications Start
time: 12.30pm // 1.00pm ·
PART THREE General
and Enforcement Items Start
time: at conclusion of Part Two There will be a thirty
minute lunch break before part two of the agenda is considered. With a possible short break between agenda
item two and three which will be subject to the Chair’s discretion. If the meeting should
last to 6.00pm, the Committee will vote as to whether or not the meeting will
be adjourned. If the decision is to adjourn the Committee will agree the date
and time of the continuation meeting which will be held no later than seven
days from the original meeting. Additional documents:
Minutes: 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. |
|||||||
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: Part 1 No declarations were made. Part 2
|
|||||||
14/1496/FUL - 315-349 Mill Road PDF 509 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning
permission. The proposal sought refusal for revised plans for student
housing development consisting of 270 rooms, reduced from 301 rooms,
communal areas, bicycle parking, refuse store, plant room, office, new
substation, infrastructure and access. Jim
Tarzey (Agent), Colin Black (Applicant) and Peter Montique (member of the public) addressed
the Committee in support of the application. Colin
Wiles addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
Not opposed to student housing but there
was an issue of control with student accommodation.
ii.
Local surveys undertaken by East Mill
Road Action Group indicated strong support for family / affordable housing and
open spaces, not student accommodation.
iii.
There was no evidence to suggest that
student accommodation in the area would kick start residential builds. iv.
Stated that student accommodation could
be a very lucrative business and this was where tighter control of these
schemes were needed.
v.
Referred to the letter sent by Anglia
Ruskin University (ARU) attached to the amendment sheet as vague. vi.
Described the Officer’s report as
excellent which gave solid reasons for refusal. Councillor
Baigent (Ward Councillor for Romsey) addressed the Committee about the
application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Informed the Committee that he had met with the
developers to advise of the following; ·
The land had been designated for residential site
as referenced in the Local Plan
and was not suitable for student
accommodation. ·
If the application would be brought forward for consideration it would probably be challenged.
ii.
There was an over whelming support from residents
in the Romsey Ward that the City Council should
follow the Local Plan.
iii.
Agreed that the letter from ARU was vague and did
not indicate if they supported this particular application. iv.
Had met with ARU who had indicated that the type of
accommodation proposed on this application would not be their preferred choice.
v.
700 flats approved by ARU remained empty in the CB1
Area. vi.
A recent
Change of Use application had been received to change ARU student accommodation
to accommodation for language students as the rooms could not be filled. vii.
Reiterated that the site was marked as a
residential site and not suitable for the proposed application as recommended
by the Local Plan. The Committee: Resolved (7 votes
to 1) 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 conditions and
the amended reason 5 recommended by the officers. Pre-Committee
Amendments to Recommendation: Amended reason for refusal 5 to read: ‘The proposed development does not make appropriate provision for:
indoor sports or formal outdoor open space provision to mitigate the need
arising from the site; transport mitigation (ECATP); |
|||||||
14/1697/FUL - ARU, East Road PDF 168 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The proposal sought approval for the planning consent for the demolition of the existing Bryant and Mellish Clark buildings and removal of the
external escape stair to the David building.
The construction of a Science Centre (Use Class D1) with associated alterations to the east elevation of the Lord Ashcroft Building, landscaping
and access alterations.
Mary
Croston addressed the Committee in objection to the
application. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
The proposed development would have a
negative impact on the surrounding residential area.
ii.
Would bring an increase in noise from
refuse lorries and the fume cupboards.
iii.
The maintenance road not referenced in
the Officer’s drawings would house a number of bins and it was not clear what
they would hold. iv.
Stated that the mass and bulk of the
proposed building and skyline was not clearly shown on the Officer’s drawings.
v.
Explained that Norfolk Terrace sat in a
dip and there would be a loss of light to the properties. vi.
Stated that the shadow diagram in the
Officer’s report was not arcuate as it showed the properties in shadow at
6.00pm which is not the case. vii.
The proposed development would bring an
increase in light pollution at night. viii.
The site sat on conservation area. ix.
The atrium would also add to the loss of
light and queried if this was necessary. Steve
Bennett (Applicant) and addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor
Richard Robertson addressed the Committee in objection to the application as a
Ward Councillor for Petersfield. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
Norfolk Terrace sits in a 3 metre dip
below ground level.
ii.
The design did not the show the view from
Norfolk Terrace.
iii.
Concerns raised by the local residents
have not been addressed. iv.
The service entrance at the back of the
site had not been recognised in the Officer’s report; this would bring an
increase in traffic and noise from those vehicles using the service entrance.
v.
Asked if the application was approved
restricted access to the service road / yard should be considered to limit
noise pollution in the morning from the refuse / delivery trucks. vi.
The proposed development would bring a
loss of light to the properties in Norfolk Terrace. vii.
Stated the shadow diagrams were not
correct, the gardens were in light in the early evening. viii.
Stated that the proposed building was
much bigger than it needed to be and should be scaled down before the
application was considered. ix.
Not in accordance with the 2006 Local
Plan 3/4 and 3/7.
x.
Plans did not address the Master
Plan. The
Committee: Councillor
Smart proposed an additional informative to include the Considerate Contractors
Scheme. This proposal was carried
nem con. The additional informative to read: Except with the prior agreement of the local planning authority in
writing, there shall be no collection or deliveries associated with the use of
the building hereby approved outside the hours of 0700 hrs
and 1900 hrs on Monday – Saturday and there should be
no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays. Reason: Due to the proximity of residential properties to this premises
and that extensive refurbishment will be required the above conditions are
recommended to protect the amenity of these residential properties throughout
the redevelopment in accordance with policy 4/13 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2006). Resolved (7 votes
to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve 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 conditions, the amended conditions and the additional condition
recommended by the officer. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Condition 4: Prior to the commencement of development (or within a timescale that shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), with
the exception of any works of demolition or below ground works, a Public Art
Delivery Plan and Public Art Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Condition 10: Prior to the commencement of development, a programme of
measures to minimise the spread of airborne dust from the site during the
demolition/construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. |
|||||||
14/1740/FUL - Doubletree by Hilton, Granta Place PDF 160 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The
proposal sought approval for a third storey extension to the existing hotel to
provide an additional 16 bedrooms. The proposed also included the re-cladding of
the existing façade and an extension to the existing plant room on the rooftop. Caroline
Gholer (Cambridge Past Present and Future) addressed
the Committee in objection to the application. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
Disappointed with the design which did not enhance
the setting and the surroundings.
ii.
The proposed extension should be lowered to lessen
the impact.
iii.
Would have a negative impact on the conservation
green belt and protected area.
iv.
The proposed design had the potential to be highly
visible as the roof line was too domineering, particularly along the river
corridor.
v.
The use of solar panels had not been referenced in
the Officer’s report.
vi.
There were no landscaping proposals in the
application to address the massing of the bulk of the building. Mark Savin (Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor
Rod Cantrill (Newham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in objection to
the application. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
The surrounding setting of the site sit
in the green belt of Sheep’s Green and Coe Fen both of which are unique public
spaces, acting in harmony with each other, the river and the built form that sits
at the edge of the space.
ii.
The harmonious relationship had been
recognised in the Conservation appraisal and the Government Inspector
documented the important views from this space and across the space, including
the City’s sky line.
i.
The nature and form of the surroundings
must be taken into consideration.
ii.
Acknowledged that some form of
development should be accepted but asked the Committee to consider this
application separate to previous applications.
iii.
The Inspector viewed the existing
building of the site as made up of a number of component schemes. These schemes
provided an important break down of the massing of the building when approaching
from the west of the river or Coe Fen from the South. iv.
The current boundary between the Hotel
and surroundings does have some balance. The proposed extension would disturb
this relationship.
v.
The proposed roofline would create an intensification
of the massing of the building which would have a negative impact of the views
of the City’s skyline. vi.
Use of materials was confusing. vii.
Highlighted the comments from English Heritage (6.14 of the Officer’s
report) who advised that the proposed development would result
in some harm to the character and appearance of
the conservation area. viii.
Stated that the proposed development
conflicted with 3/14 and 3/11 of the 2006 Local Plan ix.
Would encourage the Committee to refuse
this application. The
Committee: Resolved (7 votes
to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve 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 conditions and the amended conditions recommended by the
officer. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Condition 3 has been repeated twice (Condition 3 and 4). Therefore
condition 4 needs to be deleted. Conditions 15 (Archaeology) and 16 (Contamination) need to be removed as
the proposal does not require ground works and therefore are not necessary. |
|||||||
14/2090/S73 - Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road PDF 102 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for a minor material amendment. The proposal sought approval for a minor material amendment to
the outline
permission (14/0492/OUT). The minor material amendments that form the basis of
the application relate an increase of the footprint of the tower
feature that is proposed in the southern wing of the development and
an increase in the area of roof plant. Both changes relate to approved
Built Form Parameter
Plan. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application for a minor material amendment in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
14/2093/REM - Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road PDF 236 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for reserved matters. The
application sought approval for reserved matters following the grant of Outline
Planning permission in November 2014. When outline planning permission was
granted all matters were ‘reserved’ for determination a later stage. In this
case the ‘reserved matters’ are access, appearance, landscaping, layout and
scale. The submission related to all of those matters. The
Committee: Resolved (7 votes
to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve 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, the amended conditions and additional conditions
recommended by the officer. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: The recommendation includes two informatives
numbered 11 and 12. These should be
re-numbered 15 and 16 to account for the additional conditions. Condition 10 Should be re-numbered ‘condition 14’ to ensure it is the last condition. Amended condition 7 Prior to commencement of installation of cycle parking facilities, full
details including the layout of spaces and full details of the design of cycle
stands shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. This may consist of large
scale drawings. Thereafter the
development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for cyclists are
provided. Amended condition 8 Prior to the commencement of installation of cycle parking facilities,
full details of the allocation of cycle parking between staff and visitors and
the means by which cycle parking for staff will be covered and secured shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This may
consist of large-scale drawings. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken
in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for cyclists are provided.
(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6) Amended condition 9 Prior to first occupation of the development, all cycle parking shown on
the plans and as detailed in the submission for discharge of conditions 7 and 8
shall be provided and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for cyclists are
provided. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6) New condition 10 Hard and soft landscaping: No
development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape
works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details (including sectional details)
shall include proposed finished levels or contours; swales and rain gardens, attenuation
tanks, other water storage, roof gardens, boundary treatments; bicycle parking
layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access; hard surfacing materials; minor
artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs,
lighting); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground
(e.g. drainage). Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including topsoil importation, depths and specification, soil
handling, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass
establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable
hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12) New condition 11 Hard and Soft landscaping implementation: All hard and soft landscape works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details, and to a reasonable
standard in accordance with the relevant recommendation of the appropriate
British Standard or other recognised code of good practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme
agreed by the local planning authority in writing. The maintenance shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Any trees or plants that,
within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become in the
opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall
be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size
and number as originally approved, unless the local planning authority gives
its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure provision, establishment and maintenance of a
reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved design.
(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12) New condition 12 Landscape management and maintenance plan: A landscape management and maintenance plan,
including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and
maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and
approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to occupation of the
development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner, for its
permitted use. The landscape plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable
hard and soft landscape is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12) Additional condition 13 Prior to the commencement of installation of solar panels, full details
of the location and appearance of solar panels shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. This may consist of
large-scale drawings and/or samples. Thereafter the development shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the external surfaces is
appropriate. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/12) |
|||||||
14/1970/FUL - Land at Former Rosemary Branch, 503 Coldhams Lane PDF 173 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The report sought approval for the erection of 8
dwellings and 2 flats, car and cycle parking and landscaping, together
with associated infrastructure. Paul Treadaway addressed the Committee in
objection to the application. The
representation covered the following issues:
i.
Did not agree with paragraph 8.4 of the
Officer’s report which stated that it would be unreasonable to argue that
paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applies.
ii.
The NPPF should apply to the site where
the public house sits and not just the specific building.
iii.
It
is the amenity value of the site that matters and not just the building. iv.
The Public House was listed an important
community facility in the Interim Planning Policy Guidance (IIPG) on
the protection of public houses and as such does not conform to the policy and
the public house should be replaced.
v.
The Queen Edith development was an example
of a site of how a Public House could be fitted into a residential development
and would like to something similar on this site. Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The
Officer recommended the additional informative:
i.
The noise insulation scheme should address the
noise generated by Cambridge Airport and the works associated with this use,
i.e. maintenance repairs and testing of engines. The
Committee: Resolved (6 votes
to 0, with 2 abstention) to approve 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 conditions and additional informative recommended by the officer |
|||||||
14/2021/FUL - 51A Hartington Grove PDF 58 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing two
bedroom house and single garage, and construction of a four bedroom 1 and 3/4 storey
house and basements along with one storey wing, car lodge, bin and cycle store. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve 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 conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
14/1653/FUL - Land to Rear of 551-555 Newmarket Road PDF 104 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The proposal sought approval for the erection of three dwellings
to the rear of nos.551 and 555 Newmarket Road. As part of
the proposal, a new private access would be constructed between
nos.553 and 555. The 4-5m access road would lead to an informal shared-surface
private drive to serve the three new dwellings. The access road would be
widened to 5m adjacent
to the Newmarket Road junction, in accordance with County
Highways specifications. The proposal also includes car
parking, cycle and bin storage to serve the new dwellings, and hard
and soft landscaping. The
Principal Planning Officer updated details in the Officer’s report as follows:
i.
Paragraph 8.12 (p315) should refer to the
north elevation, not the south.
ii.
Condition 17 should be amended to refer
to windows.
iii.
The amendment sheet listed Officer
responses to the points raised by neighbours. iv.
Since the amendment sheet was published,
the owner of 30a Ditton Walk made a representation that reiterated the
following concerns: ·
Overlooking. ·
Overshadowing. ·
Impact on wildlife.
v.
The Principal Planning Officer’s response
to the owner of 30a Ditton Walk is: ·
There was insufficient
overshadowing/overlooking of 30a Ditton Walk to merit refusal of the application. ·
There should be no significant impact on
wildlife. vi.
Since publication of the report pack the
owner of 547 Newmarket Road stated that measurements in the drawings were wrong
and that the shadow diagram is inaccurate. The Principal Planning Officer has
checked the drawing measurements and found no issues. The Applicant had checked
and confirmed the shadow diagram was accurate. vii.
The Applicant would have to resolve any
queries regarding the accuracy of the boundary. Mr Barker, Ms Turner, Mr Adams and Mr Howe addressed
the Committee in objection to the application. The
representations covered the following issues:
i.
Planning policies were designed to
protect residents and avoid a loss of character in the area.
ii.
Raised the following specific concerns
regarding the application: ·
Loss of light. ·
Loss of privacy. ·
Loss of view. ·
Sense of enclosure. ·
Overbearing design.
iii.
Suggested the design did not meet
criteria for Planning Policies 3/9 and 3/10. The
Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to approve 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 conditions
recommended by the officer. With the addition of the following words after the
list of drawing numbers in Condition 17: ‘and the south-facing panes of the
bathroom at the south end of the first floor of Plot 1.’ |
|||||||
14/1252/FUL - Citylife House, Sturton Street PDF 144 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for a change of use. The proposal sought approval from the permitted use as a studio/cafe
bar/multimedia education centre and community facility (sui generis) granted under
planning permission 97/1020 to a Class D1 dance school/studio including limited
alterations to the external envelope of the building. Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor for Petersfield) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered
the following issues: i. Welcomed the proposal in principle due to historic problems associated with other sites: · Traffic movements. · Students travel to other sites by car (contrary to paragraph 8.17 of the Officer’s report). ii. The proposal was for one large building on a single site. The impact of this on car parking spaces was unclear ie would 17 or all of the 39 spaces be allocated to the Bodyworks dance studio. iii. Asked for a condition that all 39 car parking spaces be allocated to the Bodyworks dance studio. Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that condition 11 included a traffic management plan to ensure Bodyworks was serviced by sufficient car parking spaces. This amendment was agreed
nem con. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the amended conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
14/1450/FUL - Land to the rear of 241 Milton Road PDF 86 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of new
detached dwelling and associated garage. The Committee: Resolved (by 7
votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to approve 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 conditions recommended by the
officer. |
|||||||
14/1549/FUL - 15 Swann's Road PDF 64 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
retrospective full planning permission. The application sought approval for the
retention of the use of the site as a self-storage yard with the erection of
eleven containers plus associated entrance gates from Swann's Road. Mr Conway (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application for retrospective 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 officer. |
|||||||
14/1510/FUL - Jesus College, Jesus Lane PDF 99 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for full planning permission. The
proposal sought approval for the internal refurbishment and external remodelling
of the Rank Building; addition of
a new entrance building between Marshall Court and
the Rank Building; internal refurbishment of the Webb Building; alterations to the west
elevation and addition of a new cafe pavilion to the north
elevation of the Webb Building (formerly Wesley House). Proposals provide facilities for lectures
and conferences,
social space,
administrative spaces and residential accommodation. Mr
Pratt (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve 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 conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
14/1511/LBC - Jesus College, Jesus Lane PDF 95 KB Minutes: The
Committee received an application for listed building consent. The
proposal sought approval for the Internal refurbishment and external
remodelling of the Rank Building; addition of a new entrance building between
Marshall Court and the Rank Building; internal refurbishment of the Webb
Building; alterations to the west elevation and addition of a new cafe pavilion
to the north elevation of the Webb Building (formerly Wesley House). Proposals
provide facilities for lectures and conferences, social space, administrative
spaces and residential accommodation. Mr
Pratt (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. The
Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application for listed building consent in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
14/1618/FUL - 265 Queen Ediths Way PDF 40 KB Minutes: The application
sought approval for proposed HMO change
of use from 6 person to 7 person via garage conversion including conservatory The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to approve the application for a change of use in accordance with the
officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and
subject to the conditions recommended by the officer. |
|||||||
Report attached separately.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee were invited to comment on proposed tree works to London plane trees growing on Alexandra Gardens because objections and representations have been received to the works. The Council’s Tree Works Protocol requires these objections and representations to be referred to Planning Committee to make a recommendation on the proposed tree works At the request of
Mr Buxton (acting as solicitor to Objectors), and with the Committee’s
permission, the Head of Legal Services tabled copies of Mr Buxton’s correspondence
with the City Council. The Committee adjourned for 10 minutes to read them.
Members expressed concern at the late the late presentation of information, as
it restricted the time they had to consider details. Councillor Blencowe
sought specific reassurance from the Head of Legal Services that there was
nothing in Mr Buxton’s letters to make the Head of Legal Services change his
advice, as Councillors were relying on this to make their decision. The Head of
Legal Services stated there was nothing in Mr Buxton’s letters, or the Head of
Legal Services’ response that changed his advice to Councillors. Members asked for
clarification regarding the tree works protocol. The Asset Manager said
this was a voluntary code adopted by the Council to mirror the tree works
process so the Council manages trees in a transparent way. It is the
responsibility for tree owners to undertake recommended work, not the Council
in general. The Committee
received representations from the following: ·
Mr
Davey. ·
Mr
Sparks. ·
Ms Gordon-Clark. The representations
covered the following issues:
i.
Referred to correspondence between Mr Buxton and
the Head of Legal services. Specifically the point referring to the Supreme
Court decision.
ii.
Suggested that independent third party legal advice
should be sought before further action was taken regarding the trees.
iii.
Suggested it was illegal to undertake any tree work
between March and June. iv.
Took issue with: ·
The details in the Officer’s report. ·
The consultation process. ·
The lack of response from the City Council Legal
Department to Objectors. ·
The trees being blamed for any structural damage to
buildings. ·
The removal of the trees and the Executive
Councillor’s reasons for doing so. This would lead to loss of amenity.
v.
Asked for the trees to be retained. Councillor Cantrill
(Ward Councillor for Newnham) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
Spoke as a former Executive Councillor with
experience of the planning process.
ii.
The park and trees form an essential part of the
character of the area.
iii.
Chapter 4 of the Local Plan referred to amenity
value, which should be taken into account by the Committee. The public benefits
of tree works did not meet Local Plan Policy 4/4. There was more amenity value
in keeping the trees than not. iv.
Asked for a deferral until future consultation could
be undertaken. A Tree Preservation Order may facilitate this. Councillor
Todd-Jones (Ward Councillor for Arbury) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Supported Councillor Cantrill’s comments. ii.
Asked
why the consultation process was different now compared to five years ago. iii.
Ward
Councillors had received a lot of concerns from residents regarding the
proposed tree loss. iv.
Referred
to paragraphs 3.1-3.5 of the Officer’s report setting out the benefit/value of
the trees. Details in the Officer’s report and introductory presentation to
this agenda item also set out the financial value of the trees. v.
Took
issue with the Council not contesting the legal case that the trees were
responsible for structural damage, and so tree work was required. Also took
issue with non-disclosure of the evidence base for reasons why the legal case
was not being contested. vi.
Stated
it was hard to respond to the late presentation of Mr Buxton’s papers. The Chair asked the Asset Manager if he wanted to respond to any of the public speaker and Ward Councillor’s points. He said: i. Advice from loss adjustors was that the Council was liable for claims. ii. Tree works could be undertaken between March and June if nesting birds were not disturbed. iii. Tree work was being undertaken to avoid future claims. The public benefit of this was to avoid the Council being liable for future costs, which would have to be funded by the public purse. iv. The evidence base for not contesting the legal case was set out in the Appendix to the consultation document. The Committee: Resolved
(5 votes to 3) to accept
the officer recommendation to advise the Executive
Councillor for City Centre and Public Places that the Planning Committee
supports the proposal to:
i.
Reduce by ~30-40% by branch
length (which equates to approximately ~70% by volume) trees T17, T21, T22,
T23, & T24 , and maintain bi-annually at their reduced volume; and that
cyclical pruning work is carried out to trees T18, T19, T20 and T27 to retain
these trees at their current dimension; and ii. Instruct Officers’ to consider the adoption of the Joint Mitigation Protocol as policy in the forthcoming Tree Strategy. |
|||||||
The Marque Scheme Review PDF 119 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Leader of the Council asked the Head of Planning
Services to commission an independent review of the Marque development at the
junction of Hills Road and Cherry Hinton Road. On 3rd September 2014, the Planning Committee resolved
to approve the draft brief for the independent review presented to them at that
meeting, and to ask officers to procure the services of an appropriate
consultant to undertake this work as soon as practicable. Officers appointed Barry Shaw MBE, an independent
advisor on town planning and urban design, to carry out the review, which had
now been completed. The Committee received the report of the independent
review of the Marque development carried out by Mr Shaw. They were asked to
note its conclusions, and consider its recommendations. The Urban Design & Conservation Manager tabled a diagram of the development. The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from the following: ·
Mr Crabtree ·
Mr Brigham The representations covered the following issues: i. The Marque does not contribute to the character of the area. ii. Took issue with the: · Unattractive design. It is also different from the original proposal due to a series of cumulative amendments. Referred to Design & Conservation panel comments noting this. · Materials. · Lower than expected amount of public art on site. iii. Cambridge needs a good landmark, trees would be a better feature than the proposal. iv. Referred to Mr Shaw’s report and agreed with his conclusions. v. Suggested the Council invested in a ‘get it right first time approach’ to avoid changes to future planning proposals through a series of cumulative amendments; by better managing the post-approval process. Councillor Herbert (Ward Councillor for Coleridge) addressed the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues: i. The Marque was an issue that has been considered by Planning Committee over time. ii. The new Local Plan proposes that planning briefs can be held on applications. Requested that Planning Committee implement these in future for all tall or landmark buildings. iii. Referred to Mr Shaw’s report and agreed with his conclusions. The design has changed over time from the original concept due to a series of amendments. Councillors Smart and Dryden proposed to ask the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to consider Planning Briefs for all tall and unusual buildings in future. The exact wording for this proposal would be agreed by Committee Chair and Spokesperson with Officers. This proposal was unanimously agreed. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously)
to note and accept the
conclusions in Mr Shaw’s independent review of the Marque development,
and its recommendations. |
|||||||
EN/0382/14 - 26 Bishops Road PDF 110 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action. The report sought that enforcement action is authorised in respect of the breaches of planning control to serve two enforcement notices to remedy (a) the unlawful material change of use of the outbuilding and (b) the breach of condition 3. Site: 26 Bishops Road Breach: Non-compliance with
condition requiring outbuilding to remain ancillary to main property The Committee: Resolved (unanimously to accept the
officer recommendation to:
i.
Authorise the service of enforcement notices under
S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of the
breaches of planning control, namely the failure to comply with planning condition
3 of planning permission reference 13/1654/FUL, and the material change of use
of the ancillary studio to a separate unit, at 26 Bishops Road, Cambridge,
specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in
paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Officer’s report, for the reasons contained in
paragraph 5.4.
ii.
Authorise the Head of Planning Services (after
consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the
enforcement notices.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services
(after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s
powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the
enforcement notices. |
|||||||
Decision to Continue Minutes: Standing orders require the Committee to vote to continue or not when they come to 18:00. The Committee unanimously agreed to continue discussing planning items post-18:00, instead of reconvening on another day. |
|||||||
EN/0047/14 - 49 Woodlark Road PDF 81 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action. The report sought authority that prosecution proceedings be authorised to
for failure to comply with the notice served. Site: 49 Woodlark Road Breach: Non-compliance with
Section 215 notice issued for condition of land (Enforcement reference:
EN/0047/14) The Committee received representations from the following: · Mr Moore · Mrs Nichollas The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Requested action be taken.
49 Woodlark Road had been neglected for many years.
ii.
Property neglect led to the following concerns: · Structural
problems at 49 Woodlark Road directly affected neighbours. · Pests/vermin. · Cars in the
driveway were a fire risk.
iii.
The property owner was a nice guy
who and a hoarder. Problems had arisen due to his reclusive nature, which made
it difficult to engage with him. Suggested the Council take action if the
property owner were unable/unwilling to. The Committee: Resolved (7 votes
to 0 with 1 abstention) to accept the officer recommendation to give
delegated authority to the Head of Planning and the Head of Legal Services
jointly, to take prosecution action on behalf of the Council for failure to
comply with the requirements of the Section 215 Notice. |
|||||||
EN/0378/14 - 45 Elfleda Road PDF 79 KB Minutes: The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action. The report sought
authority to serve an enforcement notice. Site: 45 Elfleda
Road Breach: Unauthorised
operational development relating to the erection of a roof dormer The Committee received a representation in objection to enforcement
action from Mr Davis. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
A complaint had been made against the Officers
undertaking enforcement action.
ii.
Took issue with details in the Officer’s report.
iii.
Human Rights and Equality Act issues needed due
consideration. iv.
The occupier of 45 Elfleda Road did not speak
English as her first language, so had difficulty understanding the planning
process and its requirements.
v.
Suggested it was inappropriate to require the full
removal of the dormer window. vi.
Suggested the Council had not assisted the occupier
of 45 Elfleda Road or followed due process. Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
that the period for compliance be extended from 6 months to 8. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously to accept the
officer recommendation (as amended) to:
i.
Authorise an enforcement notice under S172 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of a breach of
planning control, namely the unauthorised operational development consisting of
the erection of a roof dormer at 45 Elfleda Road specifying the steps to comply
and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the
Officer’s report, for the reasons contained in paragraph 5.4.
ii.
Authorise the Head of Planning Services (after
consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the
enforcement notice.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services
(after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s
powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the
enforcement notice. |
|||||||
14/571/TTPO - 19 Champneys Walk PDF 623 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application to
crown reduce the Beech in the rear garden of 19 Champneys Walk by 3 to 4 metres
and raise the crown to 4m. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to accept the officer
recommendation and grant consent subject to condition. |
|||||||
14/605/TTCA - Capstan Close PDF 1 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: A 211 Notice was received to carry out works to willow trees on the
eastern side of the Island, to the rear of 5, 6 and 7 Capstan Close. The Committee were asked to: (1) Confirm the TPO or (2) Allow the TPO to lapse and (3) Allow tree works, subject to condition or (4) Refuse tree works. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from Mr Spiegelhalter. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
There was no evidence the trees were a current
danger.
ii.
There was a need for some tree work. Took issue
with the work proposed in the Officer’s report and suggested this was too much
as it would expose the unattractive boathouse. A management plan was in place
already. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved to accept the officer recommendation and grant permission to confirm
the TPO that was the subject of the application; and tree works are allowed
subject to condition limiting extent. |