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
Note: This meeting is now taking place in Committee Rooms 1 & 2
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Nethsingha and Sarris. Councillor Page-Croft was present as the alternate. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2018 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|
17/1372/FUL - 291 Hills Road PDF 340 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for residential development containing
15 flats (comprising 8 x 2-bed units and 7 x 1-bed units), along with access, car
parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing
buildings. The Senior Planner referred to the pre-committee amendments on the
amendment sheet: · Minor corrections
to wording of conditions to remove typographical errors. · Removal of the
recommended public art condition 31 The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from residents of Hills Road. The representations covered the following issues: i.
Suggested there were planning
reasons to refuse the application. ii.
Local Plan Policy 3/10
(sub-division of existing plots) was not mentioned in the Officer’s report,
although it was directly relevant. a.
Criterion A was not met due to
impact on amenity, loss of privacy, overbearing, sense of enclosure and light
pollution. b.
Criterion B was not met due to
inadequate amenity space as 15 families would live on the proposed development. c.
Criterion C was not met due to as
the development would detract from the character and appearance of the area.
Also overlooking neighbouring properties and loss of privacy. d.
Criterion E was not met due to
adverse effects on trees and wildlife iii.
Expressed concern over loss of
family home and proposed that affordable housing should have been required
under the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2008. iv.
The Senior Planner’s report asked
Councillors to disregard Planning Policy 5/5. v.
The Supplementary Planning
Document was a material consideration which should be followed. It was the
relevant document to consider until the 2014 draft document was adopted. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Price (Executive Councillor for Housing – City Council)
addressed the Committee about the application. The representations covered the following issues:
i.
There was great demand for affordable housing in
the city.
ii.
The greatest need was for 1-2 bedroom homes.
iii.
The 2006 Local Plan and 2008 Supplementary Planning
Document set 15 properties as the threshold at which housing developments are required
to provide affordable housing. This would be amended to 11 in the new draft
Local Plan.
iv.
The application proposed to replace 1 large home
with 15 flats.
v.
Asked the Planning Committee to reject the
application as it did not meet the requirements of policy 5/5 in the 2006 Local
Plan or paragraph 30 in the Supplementary Planning Document to provide
affordable housing. Councillor T. Moore (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor - City Council)
addressed the Committee about the application. The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Expressed concern about the impact of the
development on congestion on the south part of the city and Ring Road.
ii.
A small change in traffic volumes could produce a
disproportionate impact on network flow during busy times. Vehicles leaving the
site could cause traffic flow issues for the whole of the south area, including
Addenbrooke’s Hospital.
iii.
Vehicles egress from the development would be
hindered by existing traffic routes as they would have to cross traffic lanes.
iv.
The Highways Agency was not good at modelling the
impact of developments on the road network as a whole, just on individual
junctions.
v.
Requested further modelling of the impact of the
development on the Hills Road / Long Road / Queen Edith’s Way junction and
southern road network.
vi.
The network was important for the economy and
health (ie impact of pollution) of the city. vii.
Queuing vehicles would exacerbate air quality
issues. Councillor Taylor (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor – County Council)
addressed the Committee about the application. The representations covered the following issues:
i.
Traffic, accidents and parking were key issues for
residents.
ii.
Addenbrooke’s Hospital was located in the area,
which already had heavy traffic, traffic flow and parking issues.
iii.
Cycleways had recently been built on Hills Road to
reduce car numbers.
iv.
Hills Road had the highest traffic levels in south
east Cambridgeshire.
v.
The Addenbrooke’s junction was already at capacity.
More companies were expected to relocate on the site in future and so add to
congestion.
vi.
Referred to the Officer’s report stating the
application met planning policy criteria for traffic; the site was seen as
sustainable due to bus and cycle links. It may do so in theory but Queen
Edith’s Ward had the highest level of car ownership in the city, so the
application may have an unacceptable traffic impact contrary to indications
from traffic modelling. vii.
Referred to an application that was refused in 1990
due to traffic capacity issues. The situation had not changed. viii.
A pedestrian crossing had not been included on the
Queen Edith’s Way section of the traffic junction due to the negative impact on
traffic flow. T The Chair asked for Officer advice on:
i.
How much consideration should be given to the ex ante
Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document.
ii.
Traffic impact. Officers answered:
i.
The Legal Advisor said: a.
Councillors should determine the planning
application on current planning policy (ie 5/5 of the
2006 Local Plan) unless an exception could be demonstrated. b.
The policy was typically interpreted as net
increase of housing, not gross. c.
The Supplementary Planning Document was guidance
that sat behind the Local Plan. d.
It was a decision for Councillors how much weight
they gave to the Supplementary Planning Document.
ii.
The Lead Engineer said: a.
The National Planning Policy Framework indicated
that the Highways Agency should not object to applications unless a severe
detrimental negative impact could be demonstrated. b.
The small increase in vehicles was not enough to
demonstrate a reason to object to the application. c.
The traffic model had a margin of error. Smaller
numbers of vehicles had greater margin of error in the model. d.
He was unaware of any modelling that could
calculate the impact of vehicles from the application on the network as a
whole. e.
The Hills Road / Long Road / Queen Edith’s junction
was over capacity. f.
Vehicles from the application would have to cross
traffic lanes to egress the site, but this should happen safely. g.
He could not advise that there would be a severe
adverse impact or that the junction would operate unsafely and therefore had no
objection to the proposal. The Committee: Councillor Tunnicliffe absented himself for the vote and part of the
discussion on this item. Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to reject the
officer recommendation to approve the application. The Chair abstained. ·
The Committee decided reasons for refusal should be
voted on and recorded separately: ·
Accepted (by
5 votes to 0): Lack of affordable housing. ·
Accepted (by
5 votes to 0): Inadequate cycle parking arrangements. ·
Accepted (by
4 votes to 2): Inadequate visitor parking. ·
Accepted (by
4 votes to 1): Cramped living conditions. ·
Lost (by 2
votes to 3): Bland design. The Committee were asked to consider if they
wished to follow the adjourned decision making protocol or make a decision at
this committee. They resolved (by
4 votes to 2) to make a decision at this committee. Resolved (by 5 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the
officer recommendation. The Chair abstained. Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to delegate authority to Officers to prepare
reasons for refusal based upon the lack of affordable housing, inadequate cycle
parking arrangements, cramped living conditions and unacceptable design layout
resulting in no provision of visitor parking. |
|
17/1757/FUL - 283 Queen Edith's Way PDF 310 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a
residential development comprising 6 x 2-bed and 4 x 1-bed units with access,
car and cycle parking and associated landscaping following demolition of the
existing dwelling. The Senior Planner referred to paragraph 8.24 of her
report and said a new travel plan condition was required. The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of
Queens Edith Way. The representation
covered the following issues: i.
Accepted more housing was needed
in the city. ii.
The site could be developed. iii.
The current application design was
unacceptable. iv.
Expressed concern regarding
height, mass, amenity and lack of parking provision for the expected number of
residents (this could exacerbate existing issues, impact on street parking and
lead to safety concerns about site access). Mr McKeown (Applicant’s
Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to include a considerate contractor informative This amendment was carried
nem con. 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 including additional condition below (reported
verbally) and with inclusion of considerate contractors scheme informative. No occupation of the development shall commence until a Travel Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Travel Plan shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of the
private motor vehicle and the arrangements to encourage use of alternative
sustainable travel arrangements such as public transport, car sharing, cycling
and walking. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved upon the
occupation of the development and monitored in accordance with details to be
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from
the site (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 8/2). |
|
18/0086/FUL - 25 Hale Street PDF 183 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for construction of new single storey garden room
ancillary to the main dwelling and replacement boundary wall following
demolition of existing garden shed and timber fencing. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a resident of Clare Street. The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
A number of nearby residents objected to the
development.
ii.
Over development of site.
iii.
Previous applications had been rejected due to
conservation issues.
iv.
New building would be very close to neighbours.
v.
Street scape would be changed by the loss of the
break in the building line.
vi.
Neighbours would lose the views of the church. vii.
Roof pitch was too steep. viii.
Inconsistent comments from conservation officer. Mr Jackson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Sheil
(Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee regarding the application
as follows:
i.
Questioned if this was a garden room or a separate
dwelling.
ii.
Building would be 1 and a half storeys high.
iii.
Could create more traffic and parking issues.
iv.
As this was not a, dwelling standard safety
consultees were not consulted.
v.
If this was a garden room, why was a separate
entrance needed.
vi.
Inconsistent response from conservation officers. vii.
Fails to respond to context. viii.
Overlooking of Clare Street.
ix.
Proximity to neighbours would be problematic.
x.
Errors and inconsistencies in report. 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 additional conditions
regarding the removal of permitted development rights. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no further windows shall be inserted in the building without the granting of specific planning permission. Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining properties (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12). |
|
18/0127/S73 - 23 Baldock Way PDF 127 KB Minutes: The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved
drawings). The
application sought approval to vary condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning
17/0792/FUL (demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a detached
three bedroom residential unit) to allow infill of approved carport, relocation
of the main entrance and a roof light to the flat roofs. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a resident of Baldock Way. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Loss of parking spaces.
ii.
Impact of increased cars in area.
iii.
Increased occupancy.
iv.
Verge parking already a problem.
v.
Contravenes emerging local plan.
vi.
No cycle storage. vii.
Existing front gardens increasingly converted to
hard standing for cars is detrimental to the area. Mr McKeown (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. |
|
18/0092/FUL - 16 Thirleby Close PDF 166 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application sought approval for a residential
development consisting of four1 x bedroom dwellings along with car and cycle parking
and associated landscaping following demolition of existing buildings on site. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a resident of Thirleby
Close. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Spoke on behalf of residents of Thirleby
Close.
ii.
Overdevelopment of a small street.
iii.
Over dwelling small single units, mainly bungalows.
iv.
Narrow road with limited access for emergency
services.
v.
Some residents often find their driveways blocked
by parked cars.
vi.
Would result in increased noise. vii.
Increased traffic. viii.
Problematic parking. Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Sheil
(Arbury Ward Councillor) and addressed the Committee regarding the application
as follows:
i.
Speaking on behalf of residents.
ii.
Overdevelopment.
iii.
Negative impact on the area.
iv.
Impact on resident amenities.
v.
Many local objections.
vi.
Thirleby Close is used as
access other apartments. vii.
Overlooking. viii.
Overdevelopment.
ix.
Out of keeping with street scape of bungalows.
x.
Loss of privacy. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 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. |
|
17/2261/FUL - 45 Nightingale Avenue PDF 168 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for the erection of two detached, three storey,
four bedroom family homes with single storey elements to the front and rear
following demolition of existing detached house 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. |
|
18/0119/FUL - Pavillion, Chesterton Recreation Ground PDF 194 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for a single storey extension to the existing
pavilion with an external terrace. The existing building is 47m2; the new extension
would provide 86m2 of additional accommodation as well as 18m2 of additional
external covered storage. The proposed extension to the Pavilion would be
mainly situated on the south-western end of the existing; overlooking the main
sports facilities. The proposed facilities would include a new multi-purpose
club room, an enlarged kitchen and internal and external storage facilities. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 0 and 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. |
|
18/0076/FUL - Field House, Conduit Head Road PDF 144 KB Minutes: Councillor Holt advised the Committee that
although the objector was known to her, she had no declarable interest in the
application. She had visited the site and had express and opinion. However, she
came to this Committee with an open mind The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for single storey and first floor side extensions
with alterations to existing and erection of garden shed. The Committee noted the amendment sheet. The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a local resident of Bradrushe Fields. The representation covered the following issues:
i.
Speaking on behalf of neighbours.
ii.
Has sympathy with the needs of applicant’s family.
iii.
Out of scale with other properties in area.
iv.
Too big for plot.
v.
Overbearing.
vi.
Overshadowing and loss of evening light. vii.
Too close to neighbours. viii.
Impact on nearby wildlife.
ix.
Disproportionate to scale of properties in the
area. Jay Heal (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. 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. |
|
17/2231/FUL - 92 Norfolk Street PDF 268 KB Minutes: Councillor
Blencowe stated that he had no personal interest in the application but had
visited the site and had met with the applicant. He further confirmed that the
Committee would consider every application on its merits. Other retail units in
the area had long term viability issues. The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for a rear roof extension to incorporate
two dormer windows, alterations to the front façade and change of use of ground
floor to provide two self-contained flats Mr Proctor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. The Committee: Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to reject the
officer recommendation of refusal of the application. Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the
application for planning permission contrary to the officer recommendation and
delegated powers granted to prepare conditions for the following reasons: i.
The committee
does not accept that the loss of this retail unit would harm the vitality of
this Local Centre. ii.
There is
insufficient evidence that the implementation of the Grafton SPD would enhance viability in this location.
iii.
The
internal and external amenity space provided for future occupiers is considered
adequate. Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to delegate
authority to officers to draft additional conditions. Conditions added by delegated powers: 1. The development hereby permitted
shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission. Reason: In accordance with the
requirements of section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as listed on this
decision notice. Reason: In the interests of good
planning, for the avoidance of doubt and to facilitate any future application
to the Local Planning Authority under Section 73 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990. 3. No construction work or demolition
work shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following
hours: 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Monday to Friday, 0800 hours and 1300 hours
on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of the
adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy
4/13). 4. There should be no collections
from or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages
outside the hours of 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Monday to Friday, 0800 hours
to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of the
adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy
4/13). 5. No development shall commence
until details of the location and facilities for the covered, secure parking of
bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted have been
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 satisfactory
provision for the secure storage of bicycles. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006 policy 8/6). 6. Prior to the commencement of
development, full details of the refuse layout and bin provision shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved details shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is
commenced and shall be retained thereafter unless alternative arrangements are
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate bin
storage is provided. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006, policy 3/7). 7. No development shall take place
until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of
boundary treatment to be erected between the rear garden of the hereby approved
ground floor flat and the cycle and bin store facing the laneway to the rear of
the site. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is
occupied and retained thereafter unless any variation is agreed in writing by
the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an appropriate
boundary treatment is implemented. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006
policies 3/4, 3/11 and 3/12). |
|
17/2250/FUL - 20 Kinnaird Way PDF 183 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for demolition of an existing garage and erection
of a single new dwelling (and associated development). Mr Pridgeon (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. |
|
17/1615/FUL - 156-158 Mowbray Road PDF 172 KB Minutes: The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The
application sought approval for the demolition of existing dwellings and
outbuildings and construction of 2X2 bed semi-detached dwellings, 5x1 bed apartments
including bin and cycle store. Mr Burton (Applicant’s Agent) 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 with additional condition regarding surface water drainage. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for surface water drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy Guidance, and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. The system should be designed such that there is no surcharging for a 1 in 30 year event and no internal property flooding for a 1 in 100 year event + an allowance for climate change. The submitted details shall include the following: 1) Information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; 2) A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved details shall be fully implemented on site prior to the first use/occupation and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water drainage. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/16). |