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
Note: Item 16 ( Under General Items) will not be heard at this Committee but will be presented at the meeting on 29 April 2015
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: 10.00am ·
PART TWO Minor/Other
Planning Applications Start
time: 1.00pm ·
PART THREE General
Items Start
time: If Part One is concluded before 12.30pm, the Chair may use his discretion
to consider Part Three before the lunch break. Otherwise this will be heard at
the conclusion of Part Two. There will be a thirty
minute lunch break before part two of the agenda is considered. 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: Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin and Councillor Holland who could not attend as the alternate. |
||||||||||
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 04 February
2015 & 04 March 2015. (Attached separately). Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 04 February 2015 & 4 March 2015 were
agreed and signed as a correct record. |
||||||||||
14/1154/FUL - Wests Garage PDF 306 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The proposal sought approval for the
erection of new student housing (202 study bedrooms) and associated communal facilities,
cycle parking, and external landscaping following demolition of the existing
buildings. The Committee
received representation in objection to the application from Harry Goode. The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
This application was the first test of the north
side for Newmarket Road of the Eastern gate SPD which was adopted in 2011 and
the Conservation Area created in 2012.
ii.
It was claimed that the application was SPD
compliant but this is not the case, for example the proposal did not comply
with the maximum heights stated in the SPD.
iii.
The developers had not responded to the historical
character of the High Street as outlined in the SPD.
iv.
In accordance with the SPD, developers should avoid
long flat horizontal rooflines but this proposal does not meet that
requirement.
v.
The SPD aspires that Newmarket Road is to have
green open spaces but there is none on this application.
vi.
The SPD references the social housing on River Lane
and the impact on these properties has been ignored. vii.
The application does not meet 4/11 of the Local
Plan. viii.
The development does not protect the views to and
across the conservation area.
ix.
No images have been shown from Godeson
Road as the development would have a negative impact on these residents.
x.
No 20 Godeson Road would
be visually dominated by a 9 metre high and 15.4 in
length structure running along the garden of the property.
xi.
Would have an adverse effect on the light into the
gardens of No 16 &18 Godson Road. xii.
The proposal was an over
development of the site. Jenny Page (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. County Councillor
Joan Whitehead (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the Committee about the
application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The site was on one of the busiest and congested
road junctions in the City.
ii.
There was no safe cycling route on this side of the
City to Anglia Ruskin University (ARU).
iii.
The safest route to ARU would be to walk along Newmarket
Road to the roundabout and cycle the remainder of the way along the back roads.
iv.
If cyclists did not dismount along Newmarket Road
this could be a danger to pedestrians.
v.
Crossing River Lane could be hazardous for
pedestrians as this is the route to the nearest supermarket. vi.
There was a large volume of cars entering and
exiting River Lane at all times. vii.
The suggestion that the residents parking scheme
should be suspended on River Lane and Godeson Road
for the start and end of term student drop off was unacceptable. These spaces were
not available to the applicant for this purpose or taxi’s and delivery
vehicles. viii.
Both River Lane and Godeson
Road were the main access routes to the surrounding houses. ix.
The site was unsuitable for such a large development
and the number of students it proposed to house.
x.
The proposal created a number of safety issues to
both pedestrians and cyclists. City Councillor Richard Johnson (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed
the Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The development would have a negative impact on the
Cambridge Housing Society tenants in River Lane.
ii.
The proposal was of significant overdevelopment
creating a poor environment for students to live in.
iii.
An opportunity had been missed to ensure the
development would integrate with the area and neighbours. iv.
The proposal failed to correspond with the Eastern
Gate SPD.
v.
There had been a lack of attention to the proposed
development overlooking the River Lane frontage. The scale of the proposal was
visually domineering to the residents. vi.
There had
been lack of images from the applicant taken from River Lane to show how the
development would affect the properties on River Lane directly opposite despite
requests from residents. vii.
Requested that the Committee take note of these
images supplied by the objectors. viii.
The height of the corner block on River Lane
ignored the SPD guidance for building heights and in some cases the development
exceeds the guidance by up to 40%. ix.
Had the proposed corner block on River Lane been
within the SPD guidance the development would not be so over domineering to the
Cambridge Housing Society tenants.
x.
The River Lane frontage of the proposal did not
meet the standard set in 3.2.10 (gateways and entries) of the SPD. xi.
There would be a 25-31% reduction in daylight to no’
s6 – 10 River Lane and 22% to no’s 12 -16% River Lane. xii.
Meeting the minimum standard of daylight was not
adequate and did correspond to 3.4.9 of the SPD. xiii.
The loss of daylight should be considered as an
unacceptable loss of amenity. xiv.
Goes against 3/4 of the Local Plan. xv.
The below ground court yard provides 18% of the
Council’s open spaces standard. This offered less outside space than the
previous application which did meet 3/8 of the Local Plan. xvi.
Did not meet 3/7 and 3/8 of the Local Plan. xvii.
The proposal would change the character of
Newmarket Road and is considered harmful to the conservation area. City Councillor Peter Roberts (Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The official representation of objection
highlighted in the Officers report was not a true reflection of the number of
residents who had expressed their objection directly expressed to Ward Councillors.
ii.
Residents were not opposed to development to the
site but to what had been proposed.
iii.
Residents wanted an appropriate structure that
fitted in with the surrounding area and offered quality of life to those living
inside the proposed building. iv.
Pragmatic suggestions had been offered by those
opposing the scheme to improve the development, some of which had been
addressed by the developer, but more changes were required.
v.
Further changes were required that offered
financial benefits to the developer, enhanced the students’ living conditions
and did not have an adverse effect on local residents. vi.
3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Local Plan needed to be
considered. vii.
North of Newmarket Road was a designated
conservation area and should be protected. viii.
The development should not emulate the hotel
building opposite; long flat horizontal rooflines should be avoided and should
not have a negative impact on buildings on the northern side of Newmarket Road.
ix.
Height guidelines referenced in the SPD had been
ignored.
x.
The proposal offered no landscaping to soften the
impact of the building on Newmarket Road. xi.
Safety of the residents and students must be
considered due the number of individuals on site. After Members had bebated the merits of the proposal. The Head of Planning Services
advised the Chair to initiate the adjourned decision protocol as the Committee
appeared to be minded to go against officer recommendation. The item would
then be deferred and officers would prepare a further report providing relevant
additional advice on the committee resolution. This report would be brought
back to the next available meeting. The Committee: Councillor C Smart
proposed and Councillor Blencowe seconded that the application was adjourned
under the terms of the adjourned item protocol based on the reasons that had
been included in the report to committee in January 2015. Resolved unanimously minded to refuse
and therefore adjourn proceeding under the terms of the adjourned item protocol
agreed in September 2014 for decision at the next planning available planning
committee: |
||||||||||
14/1797/FUL - Judge Business School, Trumpington Stret PDF 260 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The proposal
sought approval for demolition of
unlisted former hostel buildings fronting onto Tennis Court Road (Bridget's and
Nightingale) and construction of an extension to the former Addenbrooke's
Hospital Building for the Cambridge Judge Business School including a link to
Keynes House, a new substation and associated cycle parking and landscaping. Mr Loch (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Resolved
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 and additional condition
recommended by the officers. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Additional Travel Plan condition (20) to read as follows: Notwithstanding the submitted Travel Plan, prior to first occupation a
revised Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The Travel Plan
shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of the private motor
vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative sustainable
working arrangements, public transport, car sharing,
cycling and walking. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved in
accordance with the details agreed in writing by the local planning authority. In the interests
of encouraging more sustainable modes of transport to and from the site
(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 8/3). |
||||||||||
14/1805/LBC - Judge Business School, Trumpington Street PDF 132 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for listed
building consent. Mr Loch (Applicant) addressed the
Committee in support of the application. The proposal sought approval to facilitate planning application 14/1797/FUL
for additional teaching, office, breakout and dining spaces for the Judge
Business School. That proposal links to the existing Ark building and the back
of the old Addenbrooke’s hospital building. Various
alterations to the historic fabric are required, including a link to Keynes
House, links and knocking through to the Ark building, removal of windows in
the Ark building, its over-cladding and alterations to existing glazing and
doors. The Committee: Resolved unanimously to grant 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 officers. |
||||||||||
14/1691/S73 - Addenbrookes CBC PDF 362 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee
received an application for a variation of Condition 63. The application
sought approval for the variation of Condition 63 to agree an alternative pedestrian focused
design for the Addenbrooke’s roundabout and the provision of contributions
to upgrade the Fendon Road roundabout. The Committee received representation in objection to the application
from Bev Nicolson.
i.
The shared use of the paths between pedestrians and
cyclists were a nuisance to everyone that used them.
ii.
From a pedestrian’s perspective, cyclists can pose
a danger and it is difficult to know what side of the path they should be
walking on.
iii.
Equally pedestrians can be a danger to cyclists’
particularly if they have not heard the cyclist’s warning bell. iv.
A group of pedestrians can break the flow of the
cyclist’s travel.
v.
Personal space is invaded. vi.
Cyclists can be regarded as problem by pedestrians.
vii.
There is conflict between the two users. viii.
Painting a line down the middle of the path does
not elevate the issues identified. ix.
Requested that the Committee rejected the proposal
on the application for shared pathways. Adam Hulford (Agent) addressed the Committee
in support of the application. Councillor Moore (Ward Councillor for Queen Edith’s) addressed the
Committee about the application. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Thanked the Planning Officer (John Evans) for the
work that had been undertaken to improve the design of the application.
ii.
The roundabout was only one element of improved
access, other elements of the routes to the site must be improved to reap the
rewards of a continuing shift in the reduction of journeys away from private
vehicles, parking issues, congestion, air pollution and travel times.
iii.
The routes to the site were full of hazards some of
which would be addressed by the application. iv.
Funding was being sought to further improve access
to the site from all routes to ensure that they were functional and fit for
purpose for all.
v.
Local people cannot walk to the site, particularly
if they were elderly, mild ambulatory or visual impairment. Therefore pedestrian
crossings must be timed to take these factors into consideration. vi.
Local residents were isolated by fast roads with
dangerous crossing points and have a high number of cycle-car collisions and
therefore feel safer to take their car or taxi. vii.
Improvement to the roundabout would bring benefits
to a variety of individuals particularly cyclist who would be able to cross
lanes before they enter the roundabout. viii.
The City still needs to develop a clear focus on
improving access for the high proportion of the City, and its visitors, with
impairments (especially mobility and sight), which account for 20% of the
population currently. ix.
The application was a welcome compromise. The Committee: Resolved unanimously to grant the
application for the variation of Condition 63 in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the additional and amended conditions recommended by the officers, and the
additional informative. Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation: Amended recommendation: Approve subject to the completion of the associated S106 Agreement by 3
April and subject to the following conditions.
(All conditions listed in report). Amended Condition 63 No occupation of
any floorspace for clinical research and treatment
(D1 and/or clinical in-patient treatment), or biomedical and biotech research
and development (B1b) or higher education building under use classes B1 and D1
or sui generis medical research institute uses shall take place until the
offsite highways works at Hills Road/Fendon
Road/Robinson Way shall have been fully laid out and implemented in accordance
the approved schemes/plans in the Highway Design Report prepared by Lanmor Consulting dated March 2015, reference
140546/DS/KTP/01 Rev C. Reason: In
order to safeguard highway safety and network capacity (Cambridge Local Plan
2006 policies 3/7, 8/2 and 8/11). New condition 67 Details of the
specification and position of fencing, or any other measures to be taken for
the protection of any trees from damage during the course of development, shall
be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval, and
implemented in accordance with that approval before any equipment, machinery or
materials are brought onto the site for the purpose of the Addenbrooke’s
roundabout upgrade development required under condition 63 of this permission.
The agreed means of protection shall be retained on site until all equipment,
and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored
or placed in any area protected in accordance with this condition, and the
ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation
be made. Reason: To protect
the visual amenity of the area and to ensure the retention of the trees on the
site. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 4/4).
Additional
Informative Notwithstanding this permission pursuant to section 73, any reserved
matters which have been submitted and approved pursuant to the original outline
permission 06/0796/OUT to date will continue to be regarded by the Council as approved reserved matters. |
||||||||||
14/1938/S73 - 1 Milton Road PDF 143 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for minor
material amendments. Permission was
sought to vary condition 2 of the previous permission (14/0543/FUL) to permit
minor material amendments to the approved scheme. The Committee: Resolved unanimously to grant the
application for minor material amendments in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
||||||||||
15/0009/FUL - Slipway, Garret Hostel Lane PDF 77 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval to install a bollard and rail fence on the narrow
quay running alongside Garret Hostel Lane slipway and the approach to Garret
Hostel Bridge. The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from Tom Arnold and
Natasha Dawn. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The proposal was an infringement on public access
for both commercial and private boat users.
ii.
The erection of bollards would impede on the access
to the boats.
iii.
The proposal would obstruct disabled access to the
river.
iv.
The slipway was the only place where a wheel chair
user could access the river without having to use a major boat company.
v.
There were no reported incidents of disabled users
being harmed at this access point to the river.
vi.
Approving the application would leave no public
access to the river for disabled users.
vii.
The effects of the proposal had not been thought
through and the reason for refusal not justified.
viii.
The slipway was the only main public access point
to the middle river which had been used for hundreds of years, dating back to
the fourteenth century.
ix.
Goes against 3/9b of the Local Plan and the
proposal could be deemed to be unlawful.
x.
The proposal ignored history and tradition.
xi.
The access statement made no reference to the
access to the river which is the primary purpose of the jetty.
xii.
No evidence had been provided to support the officer’s
concerns over health and safety.
xiii.
Garrett Hostel Bridge was a superior view point for
photos to be taken and questioned if the proposal area was frequently used as a
photographic point.
xiv.
Queried why no health and safety concerns have been
raised regarding the slipway at Jesus Green, Key Side, Silver
Street or by the Anchor public house, all of which have a higher footfall and
the river was deeper, yet there were no railings.
xv.
Unnecessary use of public money. Natasha
Dawn
xvi.
There were many private users who used this access
point to launch their boats.
xvii.
The proposal would stop private users from accessing
the river from this point.
xviii.
The access statement stated that the proposal would
have no detrimental impact on the existing access, which was incorrect.
xix.
Questioned where would private
users be able to access their boat on the middle river if the
application was approved. Caroline Golher addressed the Committee in
support of the application but suggested the following amendments.
i.
Should have
conditions to control materials, add several lockable gates and improve paving
to ensure that people can embark.
ii.
Railings should not be attached to wall the bridge
iii.
More work was needed to enable disabled access.
iv.
The design should be improved so that local people could
benefit from the access point to the middle river.
v.
Decreases flexibility of the river and it’s usage. For example there were
organised tours that used this point to disembark and then continue to a tour
of the Universitys’ Gardens. Councillor Owers addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1 vote) 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. |
||||||||||
15/0010/LBC - Slipway, Garrett Hostel Lane PDF 70 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
listed building consent. The application sought approval to install a
bollard and rail fence on the narrow quay running alongside Garret Hostel Lane
slipway and the approach to Garret Hostel Bridge. The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from Tom Arnold,
Natasha Dawn and Caroline Gohler whose representation
could be found under 15/62/Plan. Councillor Owers addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved unanimously 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. |
||||||||||
14/1947/FUL - Land Rear of 2 Saxon Street PDF 138 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for erection of
new 1.5 storey dwelling following demolition of the existing lock-up garage. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 2 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. |
||||||||||
15/0097/FUL - Land Adjacent to 1 Campbell Street PDF 135 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for erection
of a 2 bedroom end of terrace house. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from Ms Cordaro. The representation covered the following
issues:
i.
Spoke
on behalf of various residents.
ii.
There
were existing parking and access issues as demand outstripped supply.
iii.
The
application would remove further parking spaces, thus exacerbating the parking
problem.
iv.
People
have already left the street due to parking concerns.
v.
Residents
work from home, so need to be able to come and go without hindrance by
construction traffic (if the application goes ahead). Asked for considerate
contractor conditions to be imposed.
vi.
Taking
out the drop kerb would cause issues. Mr Strauss (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Smart
proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation to include considerate contractor
and car club informatives. The Planning Officer also suggested including an
informative to request a contact to whom parking concerns could be reported. The amendments were carried unanimously. 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 with the following informatives: -
INFORMATIVE: “Considerate
Contractors: New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and
disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by.
As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at
promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council
encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join
the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the
interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained
from The Considerate Contractor Project Officer in the Planning Department
(Tel: 01223 457121).The developer should also ensure that the contractors
details are provided to residents of Campbell Street so that they have the
means to contact contractors in the event of issues arising such as obstruction
of the highway.” -
INFORMATIVE: Car Club: The
applicant is encouraged to ensure all future tenants/occupiers of the dwelling
are aware of the existing local car club service and location of the nearest
space. |
||||||||||
15/0033/FUL - 4 Rustat Road PDF 81 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a single
storey rear extension and new porch. The Committee received a representation from
Councillor Pippas. As he had a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor
Pippas would speak as a member of the public then withdraw from the discussion
and room, and not vote. The representation covered the following
issues:
i.
Councillor
Pippas owned a guesthouse at 2 Rustat Road. He was on
good terms with his neighbour who put in the application.
ii.
Asked
for restrictions to be imposed on construction times to minimise disruption to
paying guests at 2 Rustat Road. Councillor Smart
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include a considerate
contractors informative. This amendment was carried nem con. The Committee: Unanimously
resolved (by 6 votes to 0) 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 with
the following Considerate
Contractors informative: New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and
disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by.
As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at
promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council
encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join
the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the
interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained
from The Considerate Contractor Project Officer in the Planning Department
(Tel: 01223 457121). Councillor Pippas withdrew from discussion and room,
and did not vote. |
||||||||||
15/2028/FUL - St Stephen Church and Church Hall, 24 Brookes Road PDF 99 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for
relocation of approved sub-station position and increase of approved height of
external plant terrace. The Planning Officer referred to additional representations
set out on the amendment sheet in her introduction. The Committee received a representation in
objection to the application from Ms Gray. The representation covered the following
issues:
i.
The
application threatened her home, business as a childminder and quality of life.
ii.
Suggested
title and contents of the planning application documents were inaccurate.
iii.
Said
that neighbours had not been correctly notified or consulted.
iv.
Queried
if the impact of the application on pollution, people’s health and people’s
amenities had been considered.
v.
Anticipated
problems as a result of construction work.
vi.
Tree
preservation order 18/2007 was in place, but the Council’s Arboricultural Team
don’t seem to have been consulted on the application since 2007. vii.
Raised
specific concerns regarding: ·
Fire
risk. ·
Vandalism/security. ·
Loss of
trade/business. ·
Property
value. ·
Flood
risk. viii.
The
Council did not appear to follow its own guidelines when considering planning
applications. Mr Hodgson (Applicant’s representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Resolved (by 4 votes to 2 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. |
||||||||||
Review of changes to determination of applications by Planning Committee Report attached separately. Minutes: Item deferred until the meeting on 29 April 2015. |
||||||||||
Record of Officer Urgency Action PDF 54 KB The Committee is asked to note the Record of Officer Urgency
Action: Urgency
Powers to complete s106 Agreements without reference to s106 monitoring
costs. Additional documents: Minutes: Noted. |