Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Tunnacliffe and Sarris. Councillor Bird was present as the alternate. Councillor Hipkin left after the consideration of item 17/1541/FUL. Councillor Holland was present as the alternate for the consideration of items 17/1626/FUL to EN/0216/17.

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.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Smart	18/18/Plan	Personal: Had visited site and builder was a casual acquaintance.
Councillor Blencowe	18/20/Plan	Personal: Property under discussion was close to his home. Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with a residential redevelopment consisting of one two-bedroom unit, seven one-bedroom units and six studio units. There are also landscaping, access, car and cycle parking works proposed to accommodate this development.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a neutral representation regarding the application from Matthew Danish on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Do not object to the plan but feel that is should have given greater considered Greer Cambridgeshire Partnership’s future plans for this area.

    ii.        Cyclists needed greater visibility and changes needed to allow this would not be onerous.

   iii.        The entrance route to the cycle store was likely to be blocked by parked cars and would be hard to access.

  iv.        A small dropped kerb to the Lovell Road side of the side would solve this problem.

 

Colin Brown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee agreed that Matthew Danish’s suggestions had merit and suggested that the visibility splay could be addressed with an informative.

 

Further discussions with the County Council Highways department would be needed regarding the dropped kerb.

 

The Chair of the Committee, Councillor Hipkin, addressed the Committee to clarify his position regarding impartiality. He reminded those present that his role as Chair required him to be impartial and fair when allowing members of the Planning Committee to address the meeting. However, he was entitled and expected to fully express his own views regarding applications under consideration.

 

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 plus additional informatives and completion of the S106 agreement.

 

INFORMATIVE: When discharging conditions 27 (hard and soft landscaping) and 28 (boundary treatment) efforts should be made to increase the visibility splay compared to that shown on the approved drawing so as to improve visibility of cyclists on the highway”

 

INFORMATIVE: When undertaking works to the public highway with the Highway Authority it is recommended that the dropped kerb on Lovell Road, or a suitable replacement dropped kerb, is provided/ retained to make it easier for cyclists to enter and leave the application site.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a new block to rear containing three 3xbed residential units with roof terraces following demolition of existing retail storage space at first floor and changes to the external appearance of the existing elevations along with revised access arrangements from Perne Road, courtyard at first floor level, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

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 conversion and change of use.

 

The application sought approval for conversion of Whichcote House from student accommodation to provide 11no. C3 (dwellinghouse) units, along with car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use and conversion 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 completion of an s.106 agreement.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of 14 x 3 bedroom houses, formation of access, landscaping, garden areas, drainage, parking and supporting infrastructure, following demolition of 308 Coldham’s Lane. Front porch and single storey rear extension to 306 Coldham’s Lane.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet and a late representation from Councillor Baigent.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Matthew Danish on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The proposed Coldham’s Lane access route would give priority to vehicles on the footpath.

    ii.        Safety concerns about the number of vehicles crossing the footpath.

   iii.        Proposal contrary to 8.3 and 8.11 of the Local Plan.

  iv.        Junction would be unsafe for visually impaired pedestrians.

 

Tim Waller (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and completion of an s.106 agreement.

 

INFORMATIVE: Additional informative requiring details of visibility splays to be incorporated into the details submitted to discharge the boundary treatment condition.

The Committee received an application for listed building consent.

 

The application sought approval for Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the Grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'Footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 45 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.

 

Bill Bailey, Bursar for the Cambridge Union Society (on behalf of the applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the Grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'Footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 45 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.

 

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 and completion of the S106 agreement.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing 2 storey house and replacement with 2 one beds flats and 3 two bed flats in a one and two storey building.

 

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 three 2xbed houses, along with cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report by stating he recommended ‘Approval’ subject to conditions, and consultation with Network Rail.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following objections:

     i.        Three houses being built in a back garden in a Conservation Area would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

    ii.        Suggested the proposal contravened Cambridge Local Plan 2006 section 3.10 and category 3.30, plus policy 52 in the draft 2014 Local Plan.

   iii.        Raised concerns about:

·        Over development of site.

·        Overcrowding.

·        Loss of privacy.

·        Traffic flow and parking.

·        Drainage.

  iv.        Residents were prepared to accept two houses on site due to the need for more housing in the area. Three would be too many and impact on residents’ amenities.

 

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

 

Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. He stated to the Committee:

·        He lived in Cavendish Road.

·        He had been notified of the development as a local resident, but was unaffected by it.

·        He was speaking as a Ward Councillor and expressing the views of his constituents.

 

The representation covered the following objections:

     i.        Romsey was high density development in style.

    ii.        Took issue with the application as it was over development of site that would have a negative impact on the area.

   iii.        Planning permission had been given previously for two houses on site after a third was withdrawn as a result of residents’ protests.

  iv.        Residents felt the developer had broken trust by reverting back to a three housing development. Residents had not objected to a two house development as a compromise towards housing need.

   v.        Suggested the development contravened Local Plan policies and its form was out of character with the area.

  vi.        The front of the development faced onto six car parking spaces. These were required as a result of planning permission given in 1991.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason and subject to no formal objection being raised by Network Rail:

 

The proposed development which has a greater footprint and mass than the approved scheme, and which sub-divides the site into three separate residential curtilages, would have a harmful impact on the character of the area, which forms part of the Mill Road Conservation Area, represent an overdevelopment of the site and result in a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupiers contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/10 and 4/11.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for removal of glass pyramid structure to roof of existing leisure centre, re-cladding of the facades and erection of single storey extension (net gain of 10no additional bedrooms and leisure facilities).

 

The Senior Planner reported a further representation received from the Federation of Cambridge Residents Association which raised no new issues and updated her report with a

pre-committee amendment:

 

Additional condition:

 

17. Prior to first occupation of the hotel bedrooms hereby permitted, the replacement leisure facility shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be available for members other than resident guests of the hotel to use in accordance with a membership system.

 

Reason: To guard against the loss of the leisure facility in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 6/1.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Wordsworth Grove.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Various residents associations objected to the application.

    ii.        The Hotel had made seven planning applications since 2010, most had been refused.

   iii.        The application did not meet Local Plan criteria.

  iv.        Extending and cladding the application would harm the character of the area.

   v.        Specific objections:

·        Building on the riverfront.

·        Loss of views of the area.

·        Design, scale and massing.

 

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

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application on behalf of Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor).

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The application was sited in a quintessential / historic part of Cambridge.

    ii.        Referred to Councillor Cantrill’s input into previous applications.

   iii.        Planning permission had been refused in 2013 based on the provision of leisure facilities. The Senior Planner’s said the current provision was not different but the table on P305 of the Officer’s report showed there would be less. Councillor Cantrill expressed concern over the apparent loss of facilities and suggested Local Plan policy 6/4 should be defended.

  iv.        The 10m addition to the river frontage was concerning. This would impact on views in the Conservation Area as referenced by the Planning Inspector in an earlier application. The extension would have a negative impact on the setting, sense of place and character of the (sensitive) area.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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 amended conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of an existing dwelling and the development of a single new building containing 3no 1bed flats and 1no studio.

 

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 construction of a single two storey 4-bed 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 a two storey side extension, single storey front and single storey side and rear extensions. A roof extension incorporating rear dormer is also proposed. The extension is proposed to be used as 2 no. 1 bedroom flats. The host dwelling will increase in size from a 3 no bedroom property to a 4 no bedroom property with a study.

 

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 demolition of existing garage. Erection of attached dwelling and extension to existing house.

 

Ms Hobolm (Applicant’s Agent) 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 in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Councillor Hipkin withdrew from the meeting after the decision on this item and Councillor Smart took the Chair.

 

Councillor Holland joined as Councillor Hipkin’s Alternate.

The Committee received an application for retrospective section 73 permission.

 

The application sought approval to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission 14/0888/FUL (Proposed two storey house to rear of 8 Cheney Way (with access from Long Reach Road), following demolition of the existing garage) to allow an increase in height of the dwelling.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for retrospective section 73 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 section 73 permission.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 1 of planning permission 15/0924/FUL (Part two storey part single storey rear and side extensions, incorporating rear balcony, following demolition of existing garage and part demolition of existing house. Roof extension incorporating rear dormers and balcony and raising ridge height) to allow for amended plans to be passed showing amendments to external appearance including privacy screens to external balconies, balustrades to the rear balcony, solar panel on roof, alterations to approved window sizes, new velux windows and new internal door to utility room.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Fendon Close.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Referred to a complaint made to the Local Government Ombudsman.

    ii.        Raised the following specific concerns:

a.   Felt had not been given sufficient time to raise objections.

b.   Took issue with the height of the building and rear wall.

c.   The property could become a house in multiple occupation in future.

d.   Took issue with the details submitted by the Applicant and suggested they were erroneous.

e. That the current ballustrades did not benefit from planning permission.

   iii.        Asked for details on the height and dimensions of the application. Stated these had previously been requested but not supplied from the Planning Department.

 

  iv.        Asked for details on the height and dimensions of the application. Stated these had previously been requested but not supplied from the Planning Department.

 

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

 

Councillor Holland proposed two amendments to the Officer’s recommendation for a:

     i.        Full length screen on the balcony.

 

The Principal Planner said condition 2 could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried by 3 votes to 3 and on the Chair’s casting vote.

 

    ii.        Landscaping informative.

 

The Principal Planner said the boundary condition could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for section 73 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 delegated powers to amend condition no. 2 to require details of full height screen to balcony and condition no. 4 to require submission of a scheme to include boundary planting.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear facing dormer, alterations to fenestrations, the addition of guarding to the rear and the conversion of existing dwelling into two flats (amended description).

 

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 a new three storey building containing two selfcontained flats, bin and bike store to the rear of 84 Ditton Walk. Replacement of existing single storey extension, including 4 rooflights, bin and bike store, landscaping and fencing to 84 Ditton Walk.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report with a pre-committee amendment to his recommendation:

 

The drawing number referred to in condition 16 should be changed from ‘1068/04 REV B’ to ‘1068/04 REV C’.

 

Condition 20 (cycle parking) should be re-worded as follows:

 

“No development shall commence until details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles.

 

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/10 and 8/6)”

 

Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Residents of 78 and 80 Ditton Walk had asked him to speak on their behalf.

    ii.        Referred to representations set out in section 7 of the Officer’s report. Specific concerns raised:

a.   Sewerage arrangements.

b.   The application would exacerbate existing on street parking and traffic flow issues. Expressed road safety concerns as a result of this.

c.   The application would be out of scale with the area and too high which could lead to overlooking.

 

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to control/ensure access to car parking and the bin store.

 

The Principal Planner said condition 20 (above) could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 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 subject to condition 20 being re-worded as follows:

 

“No development shall commence until details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.  The approved facilities shall be provided and retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/10 and 8/6)”

 

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 for conversion of existing dwellinghouse to form 2no 2bed flats, 2no 1 bed flats, following a two storey front and side, part two, part single storey rear extensions. Bike and bin storage to the rear.

 

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 two storey side extension, part single/part two storey rear extension and rear dormer following demolition of existing rear extension, conservatory and side lean-to.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to objections raised by the Conservation Team.

     ii.          Specific concerns:

a.    Impact on neighbours’ properties.

b.    The design is overbearing and out of character with the street and Conservation Area.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

 

The Planning Enforcement Officer referred to the addendum sheet that corrected typographical errors relating to job titles:

·        “Director of Planning and Economic Development” replaced “Head of Planning Services”.

·        “Head of Legal Practice” replaced “Head of Legal Services”.

 

Address: Florian House and Roman House, Severn Place.

 

Details of Alleged Breaches of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling houses to short-term visitor accommodation (sui generis) at the premises.

 

The report sought authority to:

     i.        Authorise enforcement notices for each apartment under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a breach of planning control within the last ten years, namely without planning permission:

·        The unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to short-term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at flats 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Roman House.

·        The unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to short-term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Florian House.

·        Specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance for each apartment set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.        Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to draft and issue the enforcement notices.

   iii.        Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice.

 

Mr Brown (Agent) addressed the Committee.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Did not accept that there had been a breach of control.

    ii.        C3 residential use had been given to the buildings.

   iii.        Officers were concentrating on the length of stay instead of the principle of building use ie the building was being used for residential purposes through short term lets.

  iv.        There were no complaints from neighbours.

   v.        If Councillors accepted the Officer’s recommendation to take enforcement action, a grace period was requested for the property owner to take action before enforcement action was taken.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Spoke in support of the Officer’s recommendation to take enforcement action.

    ii.        The thirteen units should be for long term resident’s use not short term lets.

   iii.        There was a need for short term accommodation in the city, but not on this development.

  iv.        Any change of use for the site needed to go through formal consideration by Committee after an official application had been made.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to authorise enforcement action.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

 

The Planning Enforcement Officer referred to the addendum sheet that corrected typographical errors relating to job titles:

·        “Director of Planning and Economic Development” replaced “Head of Planning Services”.

·        “Head of Legal Practice” replaced “Head of Legal Services”.

 

Address: 60 Nuns Way.

 

Details of Alleged Breaches of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to three separate units of residential accommodation at the premises.

 

The report sought authority to:

     i.        Authorise an enforcement notice under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a breach of planning control within the last four years, namely without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to three separate units of residential accommodation at the premises, specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.        Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to draft and issue the enforcement notices.

   iii.        Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice.

 

A Representative of the person affected addressed the Committee.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The Owner had not received the enforcement letter as it was sent to the wrong address.

    ii.        The Owner asked if cooking equipment could be left in place and was unhappy about putting the internal door back into the garage.

   iii.        The Owner would respond to the enforcement notice as required.

 

 The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to authorise enforcement action.

The Committee received a verbal update report from the Planning Enforcement Officer regarding the service of a Stop Notice and Enforcement Notice on 8th December 2017 under this local planning authority Officer Urgency Powers.

 

The Stop Notice came into force 12 December.

 

An appeal was made to the Planning Inspector on the Enforcement Notice so it was suspended. The Stop Notice remained in effect.

 

The Contractor was working with the City Council to address issues.