Decisions

The Committee received a report from the Technical Licensing Officer concerning the renewal application of the private hire operator’s licence for Uber Britannia Ltd (UBL) in Cambridge.

The Technical Licensing Officer went through the report in detail with the Committee, a copy of which could be viewed at the following link (pages 5 to 11):

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=3314

In response to a question from the Committee the Technical Licensing Officer confirmed it was not unusual for a private hire company to be licensed with more than one authority.

Before any further discussion took place, Asitha Ranatunga, Barrister, representing Cambridge City Council, recommended the Committee consider a confidential paper submitted by UBL (a redacted copy had been made available in the public domain).

The report contained exempt information during which the public and press were likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Committee following consideration of a public interest test.  This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved (unanimously) to exclude the press and public if and when agreed confidential items of the additional report needed to be discussed.    

Philip Kolvin QC then provided a summary of the UBL submission by outlining the following about the Applicant:

     i.        Had a good operating history in Cambridge.

    ii.        Had a good relationship with Cambridge City Council.

   iii.        Was popular amongst its customers.

  iv.        Held a good safety record.

   v.        Had no complaints from its customers to the Council.

  vi.        Was ready, willing and able to make changes when required by the Cambridge City Council.

 vii.        Agreed to all conditions proposed in Appendix I (p117) of the agenda pack.

viii.        The Directors of UBL (both DBS checked) were of impeccable character whose job was to ensure that Uber was a cooperative and compliant licencee.

The Committee were informed that UBL agreed with the policy approach undertaken by Cambridge City Council, emphasising section 5 Policy Consideration and section 6 Options of the Officer’s report.

Fred Jones advised the Committee that UBL had been working with the City Council’s enforcement team to resolve any issues that had occurred in the twelve month period. This was exemplified by moving the pickup point at Cambridge City Railway Station further away from Hackney Carriage vehicles with clear instructions to drivers on where they can and can’t park.

After providing a working history, business model and technology model of Uber, Philip Kolvin QC explained that he would give a response to the objections made as highlighted in the agenda and additional papers to the agenda pack:

     i.        He referred to the list of considerations posed by Transport for London’s (TfL) licensing decision on page 45 of the agenda.

·        Highlighted Uber’s commitment to working with the police and reporting any known criminal offences. Referenced the second condition on page 117 of the agenda.

·         The approach to undertaking medical checks had changed from using the online ’Push Doctor’ service to ensuring each driver saw a doctor in person.

·        Explained that TfL only accepted Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from one provider. Highlighted that lots of providers can undertake DBS checks. Confirmed that all drivers must undergo a DBS check.

·        Confirmed that Greyball technology would never be used, this commitment was enshrined within their licence.

 

    ii.        He referred to the statement submitted by Panther Taxi on page 191 of the agenda.

·        In order to avoid confusion between Uber and other taxis at Cambridge Railway Station, Uber had created a blacked out zone for their vehicles to wait within.

·        UBL’s November 2017 policy encouraged all of its drivers to undertake safeguarding training.

·        Confirmed that UBL always reported complaints to the relevant Licencing Authority. A driver could have their access to the Uber App (and therefore ability to work) suspended with immediate effect if a complaint was raised. UBL had also created a law enforcement portal and a police working group which improved communication with the police.

·        Passengers were able to suggest shorter or different routes to drivers with the Uber App if they were not content with the route taken.

·        A reconfiguration of the Uber App was due to be completed in early 2018; after every journey passengers would then receive a receipt which identified the Licensing Authority of the driver.

 

   iii.        He referred to the statement by Cambridge Taxi and Private Hire Association on page 123 of the agenda.

·        He asked the Committee not to be swayed by their threat of legal action.

·        There was no evidence to support their objections related to public safety.

·        All drivers were regularly vetted through DBS checks.

·        Stated that Uber drivers were self-employed.

·        Confirmed that none of the Uber vehicles in Cambridge had disabled access. However, as Uber drivers expanded in the area accessible vehicles would be encouraged.

·        Uber’s fare prices could surge, this was due to supply and demand at the time of the journey. The customer would always be warned about the surge before proceeding with the booking so they had the option of declining it. The Uber App did not allow the drivers to manipulate the pricing to make it surge.

·        He referred to the statement on local malpractice and strongly refuted it. Stated that if a breach did occur Uber had a 24/7 support team on hand to respond to the allegations. 

 

  iv.        He referred to the statement by a member of the taxi trade from Brighton and Hove in the additional document pack.

·        The data breach took place in America and involved limited customer data which did not include any financial information such as credit card details or dates of birth.

·        There had been no threat to customers in the United Kingdom.

·        UBL wrote to Cambridge City Council to notify them of the breach and reassured that they had worked to ensure no further breach occurred.

·        All of Uber’s data handling approaches and measures met recognised data standards to ensure security.

 

   v.        He referred to the statement by Alpha on page 123 of the agenda in the additional document pack:

·        Stated that under Uber’s terms and conditions the acceptance of booking and passenger’s contract was with the driver not UBL. This did not impact on the safety of the customer.

 

In response to Members’ questions Philip Kolvin QC, Helen Hayes and Fred Jones said the following:

 

     i.        Agreed that upon receiving any allegation or complaint relating to the serious behaviours of the drivers (as outlined in Appendix I (p117), reasonable steps to restrict the driver access to the Uber App would be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable.

    ii.        The introduction of the Deregulation Act had set national standards for private hire vehicles to allow greater freedom for operators to work across borders. It was perfectly legal for a driver to be issued a licence with one licensing authority and to work within another authority.  The system was dependent on good relationships between the licencing authority and the authority where the driver was driving.

   iii.        A good relationship between Uber and the local licensing authority allowed issues reported to be resolved quickly.

  iv.        Uber drivers would be available for hire in Cambridge whether the licence would be issued or not; but dispensing a licence locally would allow Uber to build upon its local taxi trade meeting the standards of Cambridge City Council.

   v.        Uber customers could complain through the App as they were asked to rate their journey immediately after it took place.  If a driver was rated below four stars, more details were requested and logged on the driver’s profile. This would allow Uber to identify repeat patterns of behaviour and determine if that driver should be given access to the Uber App. 

  vi.        The second source of complaints was the Licensing Enforcement team which alerted Uber of complaints and then kept a record.

 vii.        The Uber App’s reconfiguration would allow additional information about the driver to be shown. Customer receipts would also display the Licensing Authority of the driver and their contact number.

viii.        Global Positioning System (GPS) data allowed the tracking of the journey, where the complaint happened and the driver’s details. This could be shared with relevant outside organisations, such as the police or local authority if and when needed.

  ix.        No location data or financial data had been accessed from the specific data breach referenced. Agreed that no breach of any data was acceptable.

   x.        UBL had a dedicated team dealing with law enforcement at national and local level. They were able to communicate with the police with ease through a specific e-mail address.

  xi.        The Uber App was configured in a local area which would determine which driver was available for hire within the closest distance to the passenger before alerting that driver of the fare.

 xii.        Data was held in a secure virtual location known as the ‘cloud’ which the operator and each individual driver could access at any point. 

xiii.        The cloud satisfied the Section 56.2 legal requirement of keeping a record of all the Uber journeys throughout the UK. Crucially, this information was immediately accessible to any authorised officer of a council or law enforcement agency if requested. 

xiv.        An Uber taxi could be tracked at all times by the person who booked it so if a vulnerable family member was travelling alone their family could ensure they safely reached their destination.

 

The Chair called a comfort break at 12:30

 

The Committee resumed at 12:45

 

Summing Up

 

The Technical Licensing Officer made the following points:

 

     i.        It was compulsory for all drivers licenced by Cambridge City Council to undertake safeguarding training.

    ii.        The rewording of condition  2 of page 117 would change to the following (additional text underlined with deleted text struck through);

 

2. Potential new Operator condition:

“Uber Britannia Limited must report to the Council any allegation or complaint relating to certain serious behaviours, specifically:

 

- Sexual misconduct

- Violence

- Aggressive or rude behaviour

- Discrimination

- Theft

- Plying for hire

 

Upon receiving any allegation or complaint relating to the above serious behaviours the Operator must take reasonable steps to restrict the driver’s access to the App within 24 hours as soon as practicable possible and in any event within 24 hours and whilst any investigation is on-going. All complaints will be reported by the Operator to the Council within 72 hours one working day of receiving the complaint.

 

   iii.        Conditions 1 & 2 recommend by Cambridge City Council would be implemented as soon as possible.

  iv.        Condition 3 recommended by Cambridge City Council should be implemented by the end of June 2018.

   v.        Referred to section 5 of the Officer’s report and reminded the committee to consider if UBL were judged to be fit and proper to hold an Operator’s Licence. Taking into account the information that they had received and the submission made by Uber.

 

Asitha Ranatunga Barrister, made the following points:

 

     i.        Highlighted the legislative provisions on pages 9 & 10 of the agenda pack.

    ii.        Options for consideration were on 6.2 of the Officer’s report. The Committee had the power to impose additional conditions if reasonably necessary on those conditions which had already been agreed.

   iii.        The licensing history which had been presented could be taken into account however it was important to focus on the facts relevant to Cambridge.

  iv.        To focus on the objections and evidence within Cambridge pertinent to the application.

   v.        Decisions reached by other local authorities were not binding and the committee should think carefully on those decisions and be fact specific when considering the application.

  vi.        The data breach in 2016 referenced could be taken into consideration but also when and where it occurred, the response taken and the reassurances that had been received at this Sub-Committee.

 vii.        Could consider the duration of the licence but if the Committee wished to change the recommendations in the Officer’s report the reasons should be clear.

 

Members withdrew at 12.55 pm to consider their decision and reconvened at 2:35 pm. whilst retired Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

 

Decision

 

The Sub Committee resolved to renew the Operator’s Licence for a period of 5 years subject to the following conditions (as agreed);

 

1.      “Uber Britannia Limited must not use ‘Greyball’ technology      for the purposes of avoiding regulatory or law enforcement          activity in connection with its Cambridge City Council        operator licence”

 

2.      “Uber Britannia Limited must report to the Council any    allegation or complaint relating to certain serious behaviours,   specifically:

 

                   i.    Sexual misconduct

                  ii.    Violence

                 iii.    Aggressive or rude behaviour

                iv.    Discrimination

                 v.    Theft

                vi.    Plying for hire

 

Upon receiving any allegation or complaint relating to the above serious behaviours the Operator must restrict the driver’s access to the App as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours, and whilst any investigation is on-going. All complaints will be reported by the Operator to the Council within 1 working day of receiving the complaint.”

 

3.      “When a booking is made under Uber Britannia Limited’s Cambridge City Council operating licence, the booking confirmation and receipt provided to a passenger will identify that the driver is licensed by Cambridge City Council.  This condition will come into effect no later than the 30th June 2018”

 

Reasons for reaching the decision were as follows:

 

Following Cambridge City Council’s Licensing Policy, as we found no valid objections or reasons to refuse UBER’s Cambridge Operator’s Licence, we decided to renew UBER’s Operators licence for a further five years on the basis that we consider UBER to be a fit and proper operator.

The Committee received a report from the Planning Enforcement Officer requesting that members instruct officers to withdraw the enforcement notice and close the enforcement investigation.

 

A Planning Enforcement Notice was served for the removal of a loft dormer following retrospective refusal of planning permission and subsequent dismissal of an appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. New information had to come to light during the enforcement appeal process that on the balance of probabilities shows the dormer likely to be immune from enforcement action.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendation:

 

       i.          Authorised the withdrawal of the enforcement notice as per withdrawal notice description set out below:

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Cambridge City Council, in accordance with its powers contained in Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) (and without prejudice to its powers to issue another Enforcement Notice) HEREBY WITHDRAW the Enforcement Notice issued on the 15th August 2017 relating to 83 Searle Street, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 3DD (“the Premises”) which required you within the period of six calendar months from the date when the Enforcement Notice would take effect to: -

·       Permanently remove the rear loft dormer erected (outlined in blue on attached plan for identification purposes only) at the Land.

·       Make good the works undertaken and restore the roof to its former condition using matching materials and colour of the existing roof.

·       Remove all resulting materials from the premises.

 

The said Enforcement Notice was appealed against to the Planning Inspectorate before it came into effect from 14th September 2017. The said Enforcement Notice has no effect as it has been withdrawn due to information received by the local planning authority as part of the said appeal. Dated this 6th of December 2017

 

     ii.          Authorised the Head of Planning Services (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the withdrawal notice and notify the Planning Inspectorate of the decision.

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

 

The report had regard to an alleged unauthorised change of use of a domestic residential dwelling house into a commercial short-term visitor accommodation letting use at the premises.

 

The report sought authority to serve one change of use Enforcement Notice directed at remedying the harm caused as a result of the breach occurring. The recommendation looked to ensure compliance in the short term and onwards.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to accept the officer recommendation:  

 

     i.        Authorised an enforcement notice under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there had 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 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.

    ii.        Authorised the Head of Planning Services (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to draft and issue the enforcement notice.

   iii.        Delegated authority to the Head of Planning Services (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a change of use application from B1(a) office use to a car licence testing centre (sui generis) use.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of one 3 bedroomed detached dwelling.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a two storey side, and single storey front and rear extensions

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the construction of a single storey dwelling within the rear garden of 30 Dudley 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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a new dwelling (Land r/o 1a, 1b and 1 Mallets 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 resumed at 14:50

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for change of use from outbuilding to form new 1 Bed dwelling including forming a first floor by raising the eaves and ridge height and a single storey front extension

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the conversion and extension of existing dwellings to provide 10 new student rooms.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        She had no objection to a new development on this site but she did object to the current application being submitted.

    ii.        Stated that the applicant had previously applied, and was subsequently granted planning permission to provide affordable homes on the site. However, the latest application sought to build student accommodation instead.

   iii.        Highlighted the demand for affordable housing in Cambridge.

  iv.        Affirmed that this proposal would also mean the loss of developable housing stock.

   v.        Stated that approving this application would set a precedent and send a message to developers who could also do the same thing.

 

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 took a break at 14:45

This item was withdrawn from the agenda before reaching Committee.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a ground floor extension to the side and rear.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Stated that the proposal was overbearing but the excessive height could be overcome by using alternative materials.

    ii.        Confirmed that the owners of the neighbouring property had indicated that if this application was successful, they too would consider building a similar extension. Highlighted how it would set a precedent for the area which needed to be considered.

   iii.        Many plants, shrubs and an apple tree would be damaged or lost due to the building work.

 

Helene Kotter (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

     i.        Recognised the changes made by the applicant to address the issues previously raised about the proposal being overbearing.

    ii.        Stated that the changes alleviated the impact on neighbouring property number 9 but it did not address the issues for the other neighbouring property, number 13. As such, he was still not sufficiently happy to approve 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the extension of the garage roof including installation of solar panels.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Grantchester Meadows.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Stated that he had raised an objection when the application had previously come to committee in August 2017, referred to the objections in section 7 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Highlighted that the applicant had not considered the advice previously given, to use solar panels which looked more like slates rather than the standard solar panels.

   iii.          Raised concern that the proposal design was not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

       i.          Stated that he supported the use of solar panels but felt that the proposed product, the standard design solar panel was not in keeping with the Conservation Area and rural surround.

     ii.          Highlighted that the position of the building was fundamentally important to the objection, because it meant that the panels could be seen whilst walking the entire length of South Green Road. Additionally, due to the size of the proposed panelling it would dominate the street scene.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The Committee adjourned at 14:15 to consider the appropriate text necessary to express the reason for refusing the application

 

The committee reconvened at 14:20

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

Due to the extent and monotonous appearance of the proposed solar panels on the south-facing roof slope of the building, the development would have a harmful visual impact in the street and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 3/7, 3/14 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a change of use from single C3 Use Class dwelling house to 2 self-contained 1 bedroom flats and 1 self-contained 2 bedroom flat. Single storey rear extension, roof extension incorporating rear dormer, and Juliet balcony at first floor. Associated hardstanding’s, amenity space, and parking.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Objected to the change of use from a family home in to a number of smaller dwellings. Affirmed that this would set a precedent in the area.

    ii.        Highlighted the demand for family homes in the area and raised concern that this proposal provided the opposite type of dwelling needed.

   iii.        Stated that the proposal would increase demand for parking.

  iv.        The noise implications would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighbours.

   v.        Rubbish regularly blew off this site onto surrounding neighbours property, raised concern that this issue would worsen if the proposal was approved.

 

Councillor Gawthrope (Kings Hedges Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

     i.        Highlighted that the application would cause the loss of amenity space.

    ii.        Stated that Cambridge North Station had already caused parking issues in the area and this application would contribute further to the problem.

   iii.        Raised concern that the proposed Juliet Balcony at the rear of the property would overlook property numbers 81 and 85.

  iv.        In a street of family homes this kind of development would set a precedent which was not in keeping with the area, the risk of overdevelopment needed to be taken seriously.

 

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 full planning permission.

 

Planning Committee considered this application at the meeting of 1 November 2017 and resolved to accept the officer recommendation. Planning permission has not been issued in the light of concerns raised by a local resident.

 

The purpose of bringing the item back to Committee is to enable the resident to address the Committee again but with the benefit of reference to annotated plans. The agent/applicant had been advised of this course of action and had been invited to address the Committee in the interests of fairness.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of former restaurant, with redevelopment of the site for the erection of 2x3 bedroom and 1x2 bedroom detached linked dwellings; 1x2 bedroom apartment; 2x1 bedroom apartments; associated cycle and car parking provision and landscaping

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the resident of North Cottages who had also spoken in objection on the 1 November.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.           North Cottages were 17 unique properties.

     ii.          The application encroached on land belonging to the owners of the cottages.

   iii.          Suggested the site plan was inaccurate.

   iv.          Raised concern about fire risk, stated– ‘There should be suitable access for a pump appliance to all existing dwellings on North Cottages and the existing access to the lane should not be made worse’. The comments from the Fire and Rescue Team sent to Mr Hammond had not been uploaded online.

    v.          Highlighted ‘The developer had declared he does not own any part of North Cottages but noted that the owner of North Cottages has not counter signed the application when it was submitted. Another planning officer at the council explained if the correct certificate had not been signed, or if certificate D had not been signed but no notice correctly served the Council would invalidate the application and would not consider the application until it had been made valid’

   vi.          Issues from a previous application had not been addressed:

a.    Lack of green space.

b.    Overbearing.

c.    Overlooking and impact on neighbour’s amenities in 1 North Cottage.

d.    No assessment of the impact on neighbour’s window.

 vii.          Stated that a complaint would be made to the ombudsman if this application was granted

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a proposed car parking scheme to provide an additional 53 car parking spaces (including additional disability spaces) and an additional 20 cycle spaces.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Chair corrected the text of the amendment sheet as follow (words in bold added).

 

“While I am not able to support the proposal due to the loss of trees and the amenity space required for replacement planting, if the scheme is otherwise acceptable, the arboricultural objection alone is insufficient to justify a recommendation of refusal.”

 

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 full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for residential led mixed use development with a retail unit. 14 Residential units comprising three 3xbed terrace dwellings, five 2xbed mews units, three 2xbed flats and three 1xbed flats along with access, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings on site.

 

The Committee noted the clarification on cycle parking detailed in the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the proposed erection of a mixed use scheme comprising 13 flats and 2 retail units following demolition of existing buildings at 18, 18a, 18b and 18c Chesterton Road, Cambridge.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Riverside Court representing residents of a number of properties in Riverside Court.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Appreciated the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

    ii.        Proposal would impact on Riverside Cottages.

   iii.        Would result in a sense on enclosure.

  iv.        Would cause overlooking.

   v.        Scale and mass were inappropriate.

  vi.        Loss of trees.

 vii.        Potential root damage from replacement trees.

viii.        Problems of surface water drainage in runoff water being directed towards Riverside Court.

  ix.        Impact on access routes.

   x.        Conditions regarding window treatments such as obscure glazing would be hard to police in future.

 

Garth Hanlon the Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Sargent (West Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application as follows:

 

     i.        The Council has an opportunity to improve the area around Mitcham’s Corner.

    ii.        Previous inappropriate application had been rejected in this area.

   iii.        This application would be overdevelopment.

  iv.        The Emerging Local Plan offers opportunities to create a strong regional identity in this location.

   v.        Design was poor.

  vi.        Important views from Jesus Green would be lost.

 vii.        Progress in the area was to be welcomed but it needed to be protected progress.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

 

The minutes of the meeting of the 1^st November 2017 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

 

It was noted the application 17/0548/FUL at minute 17/180/Plan was before the committee again today and therefore it was recorded in the minutes of this meeting.