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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Minutes Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2018 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|
16/2012/S73 - Station Area Redevelopment (Blocks C1, C2, D1 and F1) PDF 293 KB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73 application. The application
sought approval to remove condition 33 of permission 13/1041/S73 (noise levels
in external leisure/amenity areas). The Officer
referred to additional third party representations contained in the amendment
sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Solutions to mitigate noise levels
had not been looked at. ii.
In June 2016 his family enjoyed a
summer on the private balconies, in late 2016 the road opened to traffic and he
has not been able to spend time on the private balcony. iii.
Noise levels were 4 times larger
than those recommended by the World Health Organisation. These were very
serious noise levels. iv.
The developer was seeking to
remove a condition that they never intended to comply with. v.
The balcony was an important part
of the flats floor space. vi.
Will lose a massive quality of
life and potentially reduced value of the flat. Colin Campbell (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application. Ann Sinnott
(Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
She was struck by the difference between what the
Objectors had said and what the Applicant’s Agent had said. ii.
Despite what the guidelines said the road was
incredibly narrow and noise levels were dreadful. iii.
Could not understand why the advice of the
Environmental Health Officer was disregarded, they stated that further
information was required and advised that winter gardens should have been in
place. iv.
The request for the condition to be lifted
pre-supposed that the noise issue would not change but the noise in the area
would only get worse. v.
The condition should remain. Richard Robertson
(Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
When residents bought and moved into the properties
it was with the benefit of condition 33 and the balcony being an amenity space. ii.
Outdoor noise levels were not to exceed 60db. iii.
Rejected the contention that balconies did not form
part of the amenity space. They were large enough to be used as an amenity
space and were used as such. iv.
Turning the balcony into a winter garden would be inappropriate.
Acoustic barriers could be fitted and have the same mitigating effect. v.
The developer had chosen to do nothing. vi.
During pre-application discussions there was a
formal response regarding careful acoustic mitigation to achieve 50db limit but
this was not incorporated into the design. vii.
The British standard had been addressed by
Environmental Health Officers but this should be designed to the lowest
practical level. viii.
The developer could lay particular tarmac down
which created less noise and the speed bumps could be changed. ix.
The amenity space behind the flats was public open
space this was different to amenity space provided by the balcony. x.
Mitigation measures did exist and there should be a
condition requiring an acoustic panel in the balcony if the application was
approved. xi.
An increase in noise from 50-60db was a 200%
increase. xii.
Referred to a planning appeal decision where the
inspector thought an unacceptable noise environment was dependant on not
opening windows. xiii.
Requested a deferral for the Committee to consider
the planning appeal decision and also questioned if the correct people were
notified as the number of residences notified of the application was limited to
3 or 4 residencies in Northern Road. The Committee: Decided not to defer the application as Cllr
Robertson had suggested as it was a long standing application already. Resolved
(unanimously) to refuse the
application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons: Condition 33 should not be removed because
this would result in the continued harmful noise levels having an adverse
effect on the amenity of the occupants of the existing flats contrary to
Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13. |
|
17/1550/FUL - Jupiter and Leda House PDF 304 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of Jupiter House and Leda House and the
construction of a single new office building comprising 14,274sqm (GIA) of Class
B1(a)/Class B1(b) floorspace with a single basement
providing 98 car parking spaces and 482 cycle parking spaces at ground level. A
‘pocket park’ is to be formed between the building and the boundary with Kett House. The Officer referred to the amendments contained within the amendment
sheet. The Officer provided a verbal update on a further representation
received from the owner/occupier of No. 30 Lyndewode
Road regarding transport mitigation and provided informal advice from the
Highways Authority in response Mike Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support
of the application. Richard Robertson
(Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application: i.
Expressed concern regarding the impact of the
development on the area surrounding building. ii.
The growth at the station was much higher than
expected compared to when the CB1 development was initially granted outline
permission. iii.
Every application which came on the back of the original
outline permission was bigger and wider. iv.
It wasn’t just vehicular traffic which needed to be
assessed but also cycle and pedestrian traffic. v.
Reference was made to controlled pedestrian
crossings in the transport assessment but these did not exist. vi.
There had been no mention of Great Northern Road
which took traffic without pedestrian crossings. vii.
Requested a cumulative impact assessment of the
whole area. The Committee: Resolved
(unanimously) to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation
subject to Planning Committee being satisfied as to the adequacy of transport
mitigation measures. |
|
17/2258/S73 - AstraZeneca, 1 Francis Crick Avenue PDF 413 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73 application. The application sought approval to vary condition 26 of 17/0850/S73 for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus development to allow a variation in construction working times for the AstraZeneca development only. The proposal is to extend specific limited works for internal construction working hours from the currently approved 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Fridays, 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays to the amended times of 07:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays and 07:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays, for specific works only. The Committee: Resolved (unanimously) to grant the
Section 73 application in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the
reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions
recommended by the officers. |
|
17/2192/FUL - Mill Road Depot PDF 183 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on
the site. The Officer updated
the Committee that since the publication of the report the Ecology Officer had
requested a condition for a bat survey to be carried out prior to the
demolition of the Coach House. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a Kingston Street resident. The representation covered the following issues: i.
Raised concerns regarding the
demolition of the Coach House. Asked that condition 4 be amended so the Coach
House was demolished by hand, and not mechanical means, as this would result in
damage to Kingston Street properties which would be a civil matter. Andy Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) 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 with the following additional informatives: 1.
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). 2.
The applicant shall ensure all building material
following demolition is sustainably disposed either by being reused on or off
site where possible or sent to be an approved waste handling contractor to be
recycled in order to reduce waste being sent to landfill. 3.
Notwithstanding the collection/delivery hours
specified in Condition 3 the submission of a Traffic Management Plan under
Condition 10 shall specify hours during which material shall be removed from the
site to ensure that the impact of heavy vehicle movements on Mill Road is
reduced as far as practicable. |
|
17/1019/FUL - 560 Newmarket Road PDF 184 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for the change of use of the existing dwelling to two
flats including extensions to the building and front cycle and bin storage
structures. Permission is also sought for the erection of a one bedroom
bungalow in the rear garden. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a local
resident. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
The speaker lived near 560
Newmarket Road and was speaking on behalf of local residents. ii.
Expressed the following concerns: a.
Plans for the bungalow would: 1.
Lead to over development of site. 2.
Set a precedent for buildings in
the area. b.
Shared access of the locked gate
would lead to safety and security concerns. c.
Impact of the development on
neighbour’s amenities eg privacy. Trees could help mitigate this but would lead
to loss of light and sense of enclosure. d.
Existing parking and access issues
would be exacerbated. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee Manager read a statement to the Committee about the
application from Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor). The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Objected to the proposal in his capacity as Ward
Councillor.
ii.
There was likely to be overshadowing of adjoining
properties, contrary to Local Plan policy 3/14.
iii.
The proposed changes to the frontage would create a
negative impact on the streetscape and character of the area, contrary to Local
Plan policies 3/12 and 3/14.
iv.
There was likely to be a loss of residential
amenity (eg fear of overlooking) contrary to Local Plan policy 3/10.
v.
Concerns about noise and parking arrangements.
vi.
Impact on the ability of current residents to
maintain existing properties. The Committee: Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to reject the
officer recommendation to approve the application. Refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the
following reasons: Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) 1.
The cumulative impact of the proposed ground floor
extensions and bungalow would result in an overdevelopment of the site by
virtue of the excessive footprint and resulting massing. As a result the
proposal would detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the
area, contrary to policies 3/4, 3/10 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan
(2006). Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) 2.
The cumulative impact of the proposed ground floor
extensions and bungalow would result in inadequate external amenity space for
future occupants and poor pedestrian and vehicular access arrangements for
occupants of the bungalow by virtue of its backland
location. For this reason the proposal would fail to provide a satisfactory
quality of living environment and standard of amenity for future occupiers. As
such it is contrary to policies 3/7, 3/10, 3/12 and 5/2 of the Cambridge Local
Plan (2006). Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) not to
include living space or conversion of dwelling into flats (ref policies 3/7 and
5/2) as reasons for refusal. |
|
18/0031/FUL - 51 George Street PDF 173 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application
sought approval for erection of a terrace of three, two and a half storey
dwellings following the demolition of the existing property and associated
works. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of
George Street. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
The development would exacerbate
existing parking issues. ii.
The light study was misleading and
a lot would be lost in summer. iii.
Expected overlooking from the
development into rear neighbours’ homes and gardens. iv.
Loss of amenity and privacy. v.
The building would be 3 storeys in effect and so taller than neighbours. vi.
Expected security concerns. Mr Robinson (Applicant’s Architect) addressed the Committee in support of the application. 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. |
|
17/2090/FUL - Moghul Tandoori, 182 Sturton Street PDF 145 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for change of use of ground floor
from a takeaway to a single dwelling, including changes to the external
envelope and erection of outbuilding. Mr Barnes (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. The Committee: Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers. |
|
17/1926/FUL - 8 & 8A Oak Tree Avenue PDF 187 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for demolition of 8 and 8A Oak Tree
Avenue and erection of two dwellings. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident. The representation covered the following concerns: i.
Overlooking and overshadowing. ii.
The impact of construction traffic
in the area. iii.
The amount of (construction) time
to demolish the old buildings and put in new ones. iv.
The impact of the development on
neighbours’ access, amenities and sewerage arrangements. v.
The area needs redevelopment, but
residents had concerns about the design of this application. vi.
The plans were unclear so
residents had queries about the proposed room uses and quality of materials. 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. It was agreed that through the
discharge of the landscape conditions officers would seek some planting to the
front of the site subject to further consideration of the character of the area. |
|
17/2211/FUL - 42 Birdwood Road PDF 125 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for a single
storey extension, alterations and change of use to 6-bed House in Multiple
Occupation (HMO) sui generis. 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. |
|
17/1518/FUL - 15 Fontwell Road PDF 126 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for
demolition of the existing dwelling and garage, and erection of a
one-and-a-half storey 5-bed dwelling and garage. 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. |
|
17/2093/FUL - 190-192 Mill Road and 2B Cockburn Street PDF 170 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full
planning permission. The application sought approval for
extensions and reconfiguration works to the existing buildings to provide 10
residential units (net increase of 7 units compared to existing), including bin
and cycle storage. 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. |