Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin. Councillor Holland was present as the alternate.

 

Councillor Dryden expected to arrive late as he was attending another meeting in his role as the Mayor. Councillor Blencowe (Vice Chair) acted as meeting Chair to open the meeting.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Tunnicliffe	15/222/Plan	Personal: Knows the Applicant’s Representative.
Councillor Holland	15/225/Plan	Personal: Knows the Objector.
Councillor Blencowe	15/227/Plan	Personal and Prejudicial: Tenant of 16 Ferndale Rise.   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote
Councillor Smart	15/232/Plan	Personal: Knows the Applicant.

 

To follow.

The minutes of the meeting of the 4 November 2015 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the relocation of the existing liquid nitrogen (LN2) tank, Denios unit and cycle parking facilities, and scheme of archaeological investigative works.

 

The Principal Planner referred to the amendment sheet that listed a change to the original recommendation. The revised recommendation was for approval, previously it was for refusal.

 

The Principal Planner tabled three documents:

       i.          A memorandum from the Environmental Health Team setting out a consultation response.

     ii.          A copy of the Objector’s speaking notes, which the Principal Planner had been asked to circulate.

   iii.          An addendum to the planning amendment sheet setting out revisions to Conditions 6, 7 and 11; plus two new/additional Conditions 15 and 16.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following specific concerns:

       i.          The proposed location of the storage tank. Suggested it should be located on the other side of the present car park.

     ii.          The new storage tank would displace bikes from their current location and so subject residents to noise nuisance.

   iii.          Safety.

   iv.          The opportunity to amend the unattractive site design had been lost as the concerns raised in Newtown Conservation Area Appraisal (published 2012) had not been addressed.

 

The Applicant’s Representative addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out on the amendment sheet, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers on the amendment sheet (as amended by the additional sheet tabled at Committee).

Councillor Dryden joined the Committee and took the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a replacement dwelling on the site following demolition of the existing building.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a Barrow Road resident.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          The property would over look his garden.

     ii.          The property would be visible and overbearing.

   iii.          Sense of enclosure and loss of light.

   iv.          Loss of privacy.

 

Ms Burton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The City Development Manager proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that Officers would be given delegated authority to put in a condition regarding flood risk.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

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 amended conditions recommended by the officers that delegated authority be added condition recommended by City Council Drainage Officer as follows:

 

Prior to commencement of development a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be provided to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The FRA should include details of flood resilient construction and appropriate flood plain mitigation.

 

Reason: To prevent an increased risk of flooding to existing property (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 8/18).

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use from office (B1a) to form 2x 2 bed and 6x 1bed residential units (C3) along with 3 storey rear extensions, with roof terrace, and alterations.

 

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

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that:

·       Condition 5 included a Refuse Management Plan.

·       An informative be added to Condition 5 regarding the needs of the occupants of Celtic House to be considered in the context of the proposed Management Plan for refuse collection.

 

These 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 amended conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Amendment of condition 5 as follows:

 

Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the on-site storage facilities for waste including waste for recycling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall identify the specific positions of where wheeled bins will be stationed and shall include a management plan for refuse collection and the specific arrangements to enable collection from within 10m of the kerbside of the adopted highway/ refuse collection vehicle access point. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be retained for their intended use thereafter unless alternative arrangements are agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents/occupiers and in the interests of visual amenity. Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/12 and 4/13.

 

Additional informative:

 

INFORMATIVE: In submitting details for discharge of condition 5, the Council expect the needs of the occupants of Celtic House to be considered in the context of the proposed Management Plan for refuse collection.

 

Additional informative:

 

CARCLU The applicant is encouraged to ensure all future tenants/occupiers of the flats are aware of the existing local car club service and location of the nearest space.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of single storey dwelling and erection of 5 new dwellings.

 

The Principal Planner referred to amended conditions relating to the Highways Authority and access. She also said that the addresses of two people who had made representations were missing from the Officer’s report, although their representations had been summarised in it.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following concerns about the application:

       i.          Height.

     ii.          Visual dominance.

   iii.          Overlooking.

   iv.          Challenged comments made by the Highways Authority.

    v.          Distance between the proposed building and existing neighbours.

   vi.          Bin drag distances were a previous reason for refusal. The proposed Management Plan to address concerns was unenforceable. Refuse (collection) arrangements were still a concern for existing and proposed residents, as was the agreement residents were expected to sign regarding bin collection arrangements.

 

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

 

Councillor Moore (Queen Edith Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to a 50 signature petition reflecting local residents’ concerns.

     ii.          Representations summarised in the Officer’s report showed concern about the proximity of the application site to neighbours.

   iii.          Other specific resident concerns:

a.    Bin collection arrangements.

b.    Light pollution.

c.    The proposed access would be located close to an area of development, an accident black spot and busy cycle route; which made it an additional risk to cyclists and children.

d.    Existing parking issues would be exacerbated. A Local Highway Improvement Grant had already been given to the area due to Highway Authority concerns.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to defer to the application enable the impact of the development on two adjacent residential annexes to be addressed.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of three dwellings, including ancillary access arrangements, on land to the rear of nos.55 and 57 Alpha Terrace.

 

The Principal Planner stated the Officer’s report contained a typographical error on P125, where “not” had been omitted:

 

Increase in cars entering/ exiting proposed access road will aggravate traffic congestion.

The proposal is likely to increase vehicle movement along Alpha Terrace. However, this level of intensification from the three dwellings is likely not to be significant enough to have a material impact on the area.

 

The Principal Planner proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that Condition 9 be amended as follows:

 

9. Two 2.0 x 2.0 metres visibility splays shall be provided as shown on drawing no.PL02 re A by TPA. The splays are to be included within the curtilage of the new dwelling. One visibility splay is required on each side of the access, measured to either side of the access, with a set-back of two metres from the highway boundary along each side of the access. This area shall be kept clear of all planting, fencing, walls and the like exceeding 600mm high.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Alpha Terrace.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The design was out of character with the area.

     ii.          Referred to measurements in the drawing pack plan and queried if the current ones were accurate as he thought they were inaccurate in previous plans.

   iii.          The proposal would exacerbate existing traffic flow, parking and access issues.

   iv.          Expressed concern about bin collection arrangements.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the amended conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Amendment of condition 9 as follows:

 

9. Two 2.0 x 2.0 metres visibility splays shall be provided as shown on drawing no.PL02 re A by TPA. One visibility splay is required on each side of the access, measured to either side of the access, with a set-back of two metres from the highway boundary along each side of the access. This area shall be kept clear of all planting, fencing, walls and the like exceeding 600mm high.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 8/2 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

Councillor Blencowe withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval to erect a new single storey dwelling.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of 1.5 storey, 2 bedroom dwelling following demolition of existing garage to the rear of 75 Histon Road.

 

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.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use of dwellinghouse to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) including conversion of garage to accommodation.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use of ground floor commercial unit from the consented A1 retail to A1 and/or A2 (financial and professional services) in the alternative.

 

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.

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey lean-to structure at the side of the house.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Braybrooke Place.

 

The representation covered the following concerns regarding the lean-to:

       i.          Materials out of character with the area (referred to Planning Policy 3/4).

     ii.          Poor design (referred to Planning Policy 3/12).

   iii.          Guttering would encroach onto neighbour’s land and may lead to flooding.

   iv.          Unacceptable form of development in the site context.

 

Mrs Skruzmane (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          The Applicant could not see the lean-to, but it was visible from the road and out of character with the area.

     ii.          The resident of 4 Braybrooke Place raised no objection to the principle of erecting a storage space, but now objected due to the design/materials used. Raised no objection previously as no design details were available.

   iii.          The lean-to was erected without planning permission, then retrospective permission was sought after construction.

   iv.          A poor choice of materials was used for the lean-to, which was expected to deteriorate over time, and so be further out of character with the area.

    v.          Re-iterated that the resident of 4 Braybrooke Place had no objection to the principle of erecting a storage space at 5 Braybrooke Place, but objected to the design and materials used in this structure.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote) 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 reason:

 

By virtue of the design and materials of the extension, it would result in a form of development that would be out of keeping with the character of the existing house and harmful to the streetscene and character of the immediate area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

The Committee received an S73 application.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 of planning permission14/1228/FUL to approve drawing number 15/1189/PL.01 Rev A - to permit dormer windows to front and rear and a half hip to the new roof.

 

Mr Smyth (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Sarris (East Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The Applicant was in a difficult situation. Building work had been affected by structural difficulties that were not spotted in old plans. He was trying to accommodate his neighbour’s concerns in the current application.

     ii.          Amendments to aesthetics (changed from previous applications) should be acceptable. The design was similar to those given permission in neighbouring streets.

   iii.          There was no objection on aesthetic grounds from neighbours, although this was the recommended reason for refusal from the Officer.

   iv.          Asked the Committee to show flexibility. Building work was on hold whilst S73 permission was being sought, so the structure was open to the elements.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation. The application is for variation of condition therefore other conditions remain relevant.

Councillor Dryden left the meeting to attend to Mayoral duties and Councillor Blencowe took the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a proposed extension to house additional library space and new teaching / tutorial accommodation to the south side of Westcott House. The proposal incorporated a basement, ground and first floor with a new college entrance off the refurbished Manor Street Car park access.

 

The Planner proposed the following amendments to the recommendation in his report:

       i.          Amendment to condition 14, to delete text proposed in the Officer’s report and replace it with revised text set out on the amendment sheet.

     ii.          Additional conditions 28-30 to reflect Conservation Team comments (details below).

 

The amendments were carried nem con.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Malcolm Place.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with the proposal to remove trees from the site.

     ii.          Expressed concern about the character of the area if the Sacristry building of the Westcott House Chapel was demolished. Residents objected to the loss.

   iii.          Residents did approve of the proposal to use the site in some way for teaching.

 

The Applicant’s Representative addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Gillespie (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Raised no objection to the proposal in principle, but expressed concern regarding the loss of the Sacristry building.

     ii.          Referred to objections listed in the Officer’s report. These did not reflect the strength of feeling about the proposal.

   iii.          Residents had raised concern about loss of light, view and privacy for people in the flats. Also the proximity (to others) and height of the flats. Asked for the roof to be reduced in height, or the application be refused if this did not happen.

   iv.          Felt that it would have been helpful to have more information about light levels in the Officer’s report, this would have made the consultation process easier.

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Welcomed the development in principle but took issue with the design.

     ii.          This was an intensification of site usage in a residential area.

   iii.          The proposed library building design respects the design of neighbouring historic buildings, but the flats did not.

a.    The flats were too close in proximity to neighbours in Malcolm Place.

b.    Took issue with the designation of rooms in the top floor of the library building.

   iv.          Took issue with the proposal to remove trees and replace them with car parking spaces. Asked for the trees to be kept and a more robust Travel Management Plan to replace the car parking proposal.

    v.          The Malcolm Place courtyard had existing amenity issues, these would be exacerbated by overlooking from the proposed library terrace. Westcott House should provide amenity space elsewhere.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers as amended below:

 

Amendment to condition 14, to delete that proposed and replace with the following:

 

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 shall include:

(i)             Details of the underground planting medium for the pleached hornbeam trees, which shall not include the use of a concrete ring for root containment, but which shall provide use of a continuous trench for planting.  Where the trench runs under hard paving/parking areas, the surface parking/hard paving shall be supported with a below-ground structure to prevent compaction of the rooting area;

(ii)            Details of the planting design and precise locations of the trees in relation to New Court and car park positions;

(iii)          proposed finished levels or contours;

(iv)         means of enclosure;

(v)           car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

(vi)         hard surfacing materials;

(vii)        minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting);

(viii)      proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines indicating lines, manholes, supports);

(ix)         retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.

 

Soft Landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including 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, and to ensure the loss of trees within the site is mitigated through the successful establishment of suitable replacements. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12)

 

Additional condition 28 as follows:

 

Prior to the removal of any existing foundations and prior to any excavation or construction  of new foundations/piles, a system of monitoring the nearby listed buildings/structures for movement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall include details of acceptable parameters, frequency and accuracy of measurements, location of monitoring points, etc. Should movement outside the agreed parameters be detected, work on site will cease and the Local Planning Authority and structural engineers will be notified immediately. Thereafter the monitoring shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

 

Reason: To protect the adjacent buildings from harm (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/10).

 

Additional condition 29 as follows:

 

No development shall commence until details of the planting screens to be provided around the first floor roof terrace hereby permitted have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall be capable of providing appropriate screening to the south and west and shall include: planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; an implementation programme; and a maintenance schedule.

         

          Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that suitable screening for protecting residential amenity is provided as part of the development. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11 and 3/12)

 

Additional condition 30 as follows:

 

Any damage caused to the listed building whilst undertaking works forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be repaired within three months in accordance with details to be first approved with the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect the listed buildings from harm (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/10).

The Committee received an application for listed building consent.

 

The application sought approval for proposed extension to house additional library space and new teaching / tutorial accommodation to the south side of Westcott House. Proposal incorporates a basement, ground and first floor with a new college entrance off the refurbished Manor Street Car park access.

 

The Planner proposed additional conditions 6 and 7 to the recommendation in his report:

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

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 amended conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Additional condition 6 as follows:

 

Prior to the removal of any existing foundations and prior to any excavation or construction  of new foundations/piles, a system of monitoring the nearby listed buildings/structures for movement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall include details of acceptable parameters, frequency and accuracy of measurements, location of monitoring points, etc. Should movement outside the agreed parameters be detected, work on site will cease and the Local Planning Authority and structural engineers will be notified immediately. Thereafter the monitoring shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

 

Reason: To protect the adjacent buildings from harm (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/10).

 

Additional condition 7 as follows:

 

Any damage caused to the listed building whilst undertaking works forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be repaired within three months in accordance with details to be first approved with the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect the listed buildings from harm (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/10).

 

Councillor Holland left after the vote on this item.

The Officer’s report provided an update on the work of Planning Enforcement team.

 

The Committee were recommended to note the contents of the report.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (6 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to note the contents of the report.