Agenda and minutes

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: If Part One is concluded before 1.00pm, 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.  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.

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.

No apologies were received.

Minutes Item 15/0191/CLUED – Councillor Smart declared a personal interest as a relative of hers was employed by the Leys School.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2015

Minutes to follow 

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for erection of student accommodation comprising 30 studios, a common room, laundry room, bin and bicycle store, following the demolition of the existing building.

The Planning Officer advised that the Applicant had emailed him the day before committee to clarify a bat survey would be undertaken prior to development starting.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Professor Lloyd-Reason.

The representation covered the following issues:

i.                 Understood there was a need for student accommodation.

ii.               Raised the following specific concerns:

a.    Wrong building – the application was for a four storey building in a predominantly two storey road.

b.    Wrong location – the application would double the number of people in the road.

c.    The building is not meant for students (unfit for purpose).

Mr Belton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to defer this application to seek further information regarding:

·       The Management Plan.

·       Control of car parking through the s106 agreement.

·       Warden enforcement.

·       Management of student drop off/collection.

·       Amenity space.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for conversion, extension and recladding of existing commercial buildings (comprising retail and office type uses and a basement bar/club) to use Class C3 residential to create 14 flats (following partial demolition), together with associated cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure.

Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation for the inclusion of a car club informative.

This amendment was carried nem con.

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, with the additional informative:

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a new purpose built performing arts centre and landscaped courtyard within the grounds of the Perse School. The scheme will accommodate a new 360 seat auditorium, rehearsal room, foyer and ancillary areas as well as 5 new classrooms. The landscaped courtyard will include soft landscaping, an external performance space and a reflection pool.

The Senior Planning Officer stated her report contained an error in paragraph 8.31. The school would run clubs in the Performing Arts Centre, the Centre would not be rented out on a commercial basis.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Middleton.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Queried how the building would have no impact on neighbours.

     ii.          Stated the ventilation stacks would increase the building’s mass.

   iii.          Expressed concern about the inappropriate tree screening between the Perse School and its neighbours.

   iv.          Suggested the application should be relocated away from neighbouring residents due to its impact on them.

Mr Wilson (Applicant’s Agent) and Ms Wood (Planning Consultant) 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of the existing building and erection of a two-storey building to contain 10 residential units.

Mr Mead (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation for the inclusion of a car club informative.

This amendment was carried nem con.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 2) 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 additional informative:

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.

The Committee received a report regarding a possible alternative to previously approved planning enforcement action.

The Committee

Resolved (unanimously) to accept the officer recommendation not to pursue the prosecution proceedings previously authorised at present, and to authorise a 3 month discretionary period to allow works required by the notice to be completed with a view to serve a simple caution as an alternative if the notice is fully complied with.

The Committee received a report for planning enforcement action to be taken.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) that enforcement action is authorised in respect of the breach of planning control to serve an enforcement notice.

The Committee received an oral update regarding enforcement action.

The Committee noted the update.

The Committee noted the Enforcement Update Report.

The Committee received a request to discharge planning conditions – Pink Phase (Blocks C1/C2, D1 and F1).

The application recommended that:

1.    The information submitted in relation to compliance with Condition 43 is acceptable subject to approval of the detailed planting scheme by officers and implementation.

2.    The information submitted in relation to compliance with Condition 47 is acceptable subject to implementation.

3.    Condition 18 is discharged.

4.    The information submitted in relation to compliance with Condition 32 is acceptable subject to implementation.

Councillor Richard Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor – City Council) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Tenison Road was in a Conservation Area.

     ii.          The junction design should make it clear that Tenison Road is not the primary access route to the station. Residents did not want further traffic in the area due to the application.

   iii.          Asked for a junction that better linked the station to the northern access road.

   iv.          Asked for less space to be allocated to the pavement and cycle lane so more could be allocated to landscaping.

    v.          Asked for the scheme to be resubmitted.

The Committee:

Resolved (4 votes to 4 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) to accept the officer recommendation to discharge planning conditions.

The Committee received an application for a certificate of lawfulness.

The application sought approval for regularisation of condition 14 of C/0943/91 to permit the hiring/use of the sports hall as associated facilities including the all-weather surface pitch (as approved under C/0943/91) by members of the public and non-educational organisations.

The Committee noted that late representations had been received.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to grant the application for a certificate of lawfulness in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for a Section 73 application to vary condition 7 of the planning permission C/02/0699/FP.

The application sought approval to extend the premises opening hours to Mon-Thurs 0900-0000, Fri-Sat 0900-0030 and Sunday 0900-2300.

Mr Deniz Karakaya and his Agent Mr Kosele addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee sought clarification from the Planning Officer regarding the proposed conditions.

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimiously) 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the installation of an extract duct.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Davies.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Impact on visual amenity.

     ii.          Flues were acknowledged to be noisy and to give off unpleasant odours.

   iii.          Area was suffering from the cumulative impact of such ducts.

   iv.          Placing ducts at the rear might benefit the street scape but increased the impact for local residents.

    v.          Would be noisy at night.

   vi.          Waste disposal was not being considered and an opportunity to stop the change of use was being missed.

 vii.          Character of area is undergoing gradual change.

Members expressed concerns that the Permitted Development Order would only grant the change of use for 2 years. However, once the flue was in place, it was unlikely to be removed.

The Principal Planner drafted an additional condition addressing their concerns as follows:

“The flue shall only be erected in the event of a change of use of the property to an A3 use and shall be removed within a period of 3 months following any subsequent reversion to A1 use or any other use if it is demonstrated that a flue is not necessary.”

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 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 and subject to an additional condition to read:

The flue shall only be erected in the event of a change of use of the property to an A3 use and shall be removed within a period of 3 months following any subsequent reversion to A1 use or any other use if it is demonstrated that a flue is not necessary.

Reason: In the interests of minimising the unnecessary accumulation of flues within the Conservation Area (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/11).’

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a retrospective change of use from C3 dwelling house to sui generis HMO (House in Multiple Occupation), including annex and boundary fence.

The Committee:

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a two storey side/rear extension following demolition of conservatory, proposed new entrance porch and new enclosure to passage around garage.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Rix.

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        A previous application had been rejected due to loss of light.

    ii.        If permitted, would result in number 15 looking out onto a blank wall.

   iii.        Proposed extension would be very close to the boundary and should be set further back.

  iv.        The building already dominates and this would make the situation worse.

   v.        Already limited access to sunlight and daylight would be further restricted.

  vi.        Winter daylight would be lost.

 vii.        House would be darker.

The Committee:

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling following demolition of the existing dwelling and garage, erection of detached outbuilding and associated works.

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from Kevin Whichello and Louise Forrester who presented their concerns jointly.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Proposed building would be overbearing.

     ii.          A smaller development would be less overbearing.

   iii.          Neighbouring property would lose daylight to kitchen diner.

   iv.          A sunlight assessment is needed.

    v.          Property would be overlooked. Screen is welcomed but a computer generated assessment of the impact would add clarity.

Paul Belton, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Meftah addressed the Committee and made the following comments:

       i.          Agreed with the objector that the proposal was overbearing and large.

     ii.          Had visited the site and agreed that daylight would be lost from the neighbouring property.

   iii.          Suggested that a daylight survey was needed.

   iv.          Requested additional conditions were needed to make the proposal acceptable.

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 and the additional condition regarding privacy screening:

‘Prior to the occupation of the house, plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority showing a screening arrangement which would limit the angle of view from the proposed 2^nd floor terrace area into the rear garden of no. 32 Newton Road. The angle of view shall be restricted from the screened terrace so that a depth of garden no less than 20m from the original rear wall of no. 32 shall be screened from overlooking. The screening shall be erected prior to the occupation of the house and maintained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: In order to protect the privacy of the adjacent residents (Cambridge Local Plan policy 3/12).’

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the temporary change of use for a period of 10 years for the ground floor and associated mezzanine level of Fosters Mill (Block 2) to be used as Brookgate CB1 Limited’s offices (B1 {a} Use Class) or Retail (A1/A3 Use Classes) in the alternative as approved by the CB1 Masterplan and permission reference 11/0633/REM.

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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a ground floor rear extension and first floor rear extension to extend existing bedroom.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Geoff Fewtrell.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Loss of light.

     ii.          When he applied for his own extension, he was told he should not extend beyond the building line of other extensions in the area.

   iii.          Front windows of property are the main source of light and this would be lost.

   iv.          For 4 months of the year the kitchen would have no natural light.

    v.          Would have a massive impact on the quality of life.

   vi.          Loss of privacy.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

By virtue of the single storey extension extending beyond the existing rear extension of no. 129 Gwydir Street and being south of it, together with the limited depth of garden to no. 129 and its constrained outlook, the proposal would be unneighbourly and unduly enclose and overshadow no. 129 to the detriment of the residential amenity of those occupants, contrary to policy 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).