Decisions

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Record of Executive Decision

 

Combined Authority EXTENSION OF STATUTORY Borrowing arrangements

 

Decision of:	Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation, Lewis Herbert
Reference:	18/Special/01
Date of decision:	1 March 2018	Recorded on:	1 March 2018
Decision Type:	Key Decision
Matter for Decision:	The Executive Councillor was asked to give consent on behalf of the Council to the making of Regulations under the Local Government Act 2003 part 1, contained in the draft Statutory Instrument The Executive Councillor is asked to approve this action, using the special urgency decision powers as stated in the following section of Cambridge City Council Constitution:   "Special Urgency", paragraph 9.4 Part 4B of the Constitution)
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	As stated in Part 4B paragraph 9.4 of the Council’s Constitution, ‘If by virtue of the date by which a decision must be taken Rule 9.3 (general exception) cannot be followed, then the decision can only be taken if the decision taker (if an individual) or the chair of the body making the decision, obtains the agreement of the chair of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee that the taking of the decision cannot be reasonably deferred.’ As specified under this paragraph of the Councils Constitution, it was agreed that the making of this decision could not reasonably be deferred.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To give consent on behalf of the Council to the making of Regulations under the Local Government Act 2003 part 1, contained in the draft Statutory Instrument attached.
Reasons for the decision:	A decision by the Combined Authority on 28 February following a late request from central Government necessitated the Council along with all other constituent councils on the Combined Authority to make a decision within the Government’s timescale.  The letter from Government is attached.
Scrutiny consideration:	As required by the Councils Constitution under the special urgency procedure rule (Para 16 of Part 4B), the agreement of the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee has been obtained. This was obtained on 28 February 2018.
Report:	A briefing note was submitted to the Executive Councillor and is attached to this decision.
Conflicts of interest:	None
Comments:	This decision will be reported back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 19 March 2018.

 

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the issues arising from the consultation and agree amendments for the final Supplementary Planning Document.

Matter for Decision

The draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission (as amended) designates the area around Fitzroy Street, Burleigh Street and the Grafton Centre as the primary location for providing additional comparison retail in the City Centre along with other mixed uses including leisure uses under Policy 11: Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton Area of Major Change.

 

The Council, as the Local Planning Authority, has been working in partnership with local stakeholders to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for change for the Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton Area of Major Change (AoMC).

 

The SPD will help guide the development of the area, promoting a number of key strategies for change. These aim to take advantage of the opportunities to provide an improved street environment including public realm enhancements as well as a positive and attractive destination to support the vitality and viability of the centre for retail and associated uses. The SPD envisages a phased approach to ensure the area continues to perform as a mainstream City Centre leisure and retail location while ensuring phased improvement will deliver the area’s longer-term strategy.

 

The emerging Local Plan is still at the examination stage, which means that the Council is unable to adopt the Grafton AoMC - Masterplan and Guidance SPD until the Local Plan has been found sound and adopted. In the interim period, prior to adoption, the SPD provides context and guidance as a material consideration in the planning process.

 

In accordance with the process of preparing an SPD, consultation on the draft SPD was carried out over a six week statutory minimum period between 25 September and 6 November 2017.

 

A significant number of changes are proposed as a result of the consultation, although many of these are factual corrections and amendments to figures/diagrams. These are all set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

       i.          Agreed the responses to the representations received to the Grafton Area of Major Change - Masterplan and Guidance SPD (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) and the consequential amendments to the Grafton Area of Major Change - Masterplan and Guidance document (Appendix C);

     ii.          Approved the Grafton Area of Major Change - Masterplan and Guidance document (Appendix C) in anticipation of the adoption of the Local Plan, and agreed that it should be carried forward for adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document at the same time as the Local Plan.

 

Subject to text amendments discussed at Committee, to be agreed by Chair, Executive Councillor and Spokesperson.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Policy Officer.

 

The Committee reviewed the SPD section by section.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Queried the statistical weight to give the consultation responses as just 300 were received from city residents.

     ii.          Suggested the level of consultation responses indicated overall satisfaction with the process.

   iii.          Residents felt strongly about the mixed use of Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street. The consultation gave a clear steer there should be no vehicular access, but differing views were given over the mixed use of cyclists and pedestrians. The SPD gave an opportunity to resolve this.

   iv.          The Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street cycle route could be used by all types and sizes of bikes (eg pedal and electric) which could travel 15-30MPH. This needed to be factored into area plans to mitigate potential conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. It would be helpful to have guidance in place before planning applications came forward in the area so people who would use buildings were aware of a potential cycle route on their doorstep.

    v.          Articulated lorries should not make deliveries through residential streets or the pedestrian area. Councillors noted that shop access (eg lack of rear access) made delivery arrangements difficult.

   vi.          Suggested taking the opportunity to pedestrianise the top end of Burleigh Street to minimise vehicular conflict with pedestrians.

 vii.          An evening rather than night time economy was more appropriate for the area.

 

The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager, Transport Assessment Manager and Senior Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

Section 2

       i.          Officers had followed the standard SPD consultation process. A number of workshops had been held, leaflets dropped and residents associations notified. There was no set target for the number of responses required, the Council received over 300.

     ii.          Officers confirmed that the Kite Residents Association had been consulted.

   iii.          The level of responses were not a cause for concern. They covered a broad range of topics.

Section 4

   iv.          Officers recognised the current situation in Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street was not ideal. A cycling restriction was in place, but it was hard to enforce. There was scope in the SPD to improve the design of this transport corridor for cyclists and pedestrians. Officers did not want to curtail options by putting an explicit design in the SPD. Ideas would be sought through the consultation and reviewing designs in other cities.

    v.          Initial areas of work such as reviewing cycle parking facilities and decluttering the street scene would need to be completed before any planning applications could come forward to redevelop the Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street area. The City Council and County Council were working on an Open Spaces SPD which would have some overlap with this work.

   vi.          (Paragraph 4.2.15) The bus stop on East Road was not in a good location, but the service was good. The SPD provided options to improve the site and provide appropriate cycle parking facilities. The Transport Assessment Manager had been in contact with the bus operator and there was an opportunity to improve bus stopping arrangements, accepting that the solution would need to consider associated improvements to walking/cycling/crossing.

 

Proposed amendments to the SPD tabled during DPSSC and agreed at DPSSC.

 

Item 5. SPD Section	Amendment
Amend 2.2.6	Include reference to other city bus routes (i.e. Citi 3 which is mentioned in 4.2.11)
Amend paragraph 4.2.18	“… There is a desire to minimise eliminate on-street servicing but, where retail and leisure units currently require servicing from key primary streets, …“
Add new paragraph after 4.2.10	Add new paragraph after 4.2.10 to read: “The potential to pedestrianise the top end of Burleigh Street between the Adam and Eve Street junction and East Road should be considered.”
Amend paragraph 4.3.7	Amend paragraph 4.3.7 to read: “Ground floors across the site area should be in use as retail, leisure or food and drink activities. Evening and night time economy uses will have an important role to play. The only exception to this are areas adjacent to existing domestic scale development to the north of Fitzroy Street.”

 

Tabled amendments to the SPD prior to DPSSC and agreed at DPSSC.

 

Item 5. SPD Section	Amendment
Amend Figure 6	Remove shading between 54/24 Burleigh St and East Road, motor vehicle access is permitted along here.
Amend paragraph 2.2.6	Remove reference to Excellent
Amend Figure 9	Change grey shading for car parking to a different colour
Amend paragraph 2.2.16	Remove reference to Maids Causeway
Amend paragraph 2.4.10	Change reference to commercial to reflect the area’s mixed residential area/use
Amend paragraph 2.4.17	Make reference to negative buildings
Amend Figure 32	Replace dark blue line with dashed line through the Grafton Centre
Amend Figure 37	Replace dark blue line with dashed line through the Grafton Centre
Amend 4.4.21	Replace Gade with Grade

 

Councillor Bick proposed additional text to the wording of paragraph 4.5.3 on P72 of the Grafton SPD:

 

“A separate design strategy will be prepared and consulted upon covering the shared use of pedestrians and cyclists.”

 

This amendment was unanimously agreed. Final wording would be agreed post meeting by Chair, Executive Councillor and Spokesperson.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended, plus agreed SPD text changes.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended, plus agreed SPD text changes.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

The SPD will look at the key issues and development opportunities in the area.

Public Question

A Ward Councillor asked a question as set out below.

 

Councillor Ashton raised the following points:

       i.          It was pleasing to see the County Council were aware of transport issues in Cherry Hinton and the spine road connecting Coldham’s Lane with Cherry Hinton Road.

     ii.          This was an opportunity to relieve traffic issues in the area.

   iii.          Residents still had concerns on the specific route.

   iv.          Queried how provision would be made for cycling.

    v.          Queried who would have the final say on the design.

   vi.          Residents wanted public transport provision and asked councillors to petition for this as services were declining.

 vii.          Asked for the busgate to be removed as it separated the estate into two halves. Residents wanted a through route.

 

The Transport  Assessment Manager responded:

       i.          The County Council had reviewed evidence relating to the advantages/disadvantages of busgate routes (prepared by transport consultants). The through route was suggested as the preferred option to address issues raised by residents.

     ii.          Bus services were a commercial service but the SPD gave an opportunity to pump prime bus services for the area to make them commercially viable in future.

   iii.          The design process for the transport route and consultation would be covered by the outline planning process.

 

Matter for Decision

The draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission (as amended) allocates Land North of Cherry Hinton for residential-led development under Policy 12: Cambridge East. The site extends into South Cambridgeshire and the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, similarly allocates their part of the site for residential-led development under Policy SS/3: Cambridge East.

 

The Councils, as the Local Planning Authorities, have been working in partnership with local stakeholders to prepare an SPD that looks at how this residential-led allocation can be delivered successfully. The SPD will help guide the development of the area and will provide greater certainty and detail to support delivery of the site. It outlines the aspirations for the area, as well as the key issues, constraints and opportunities that will influence how new development will take place.

 

The emerging Local Plans for both Councils have now reached the stage of consulting on the Main Modifications identified by the Inspectors that they consider may be necessary in order for the Local Plans to be found ‘sound’. This means the Councils are unable to adopt the Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD until the Local Plans have been found sound and adopted. In the interim period, prior to adoption of the SPD, the Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD provides context and guidance as material consideration in the planning process.

 

In accordance with the process of preparing an SPD, consultation on the draft SPD was carried out between 7 August and 2 October 2017.

 

No significant changes are proposed as a result of the consultation. However some minor amendments to the SPD are proposed and are set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

       i.          Agreed the responses to the representations received to the Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) and the consequential amendments to the Land North of Cherry Hinton document (Appendix C);

     ii.          Approved the Land North of Cherry Hinton document (Appendix C) in anticipation of the adoption of the Local Plan, and agreed that it should be carried forward for adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document at the same time as the Local Plan.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Policy Officer.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Traffic calming was required in Nuttings Road and Barnwell Road to facilitate bikes crossing these roads and others in the area.

     ii.          Cycling was not easy down Coldhams Lane.

   iii.          Figure 43: “Coldhams Lane” should be “Coldhams Common”.

   iv.          Asked for roads with 40MPH speed limits to be reduced to 30MPH when close to cycle routes.

 

The Transport Assessment Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Routes set out in the document had the potential to improve existing arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists.

     ii.          The process to change road speed limits was separate to the SPD process. The Transport Assessment Manager would share the comment with Highways colleagues.

   iii.          P60 set out alternative cycling and pedestrian routes to address concerns about going under the railway bridge.

 

Proposed amendments to the SPD tabled during DPSSC and agreed at DPSSC.

 

Item 6. SPD Section	Amendment
Amend Figure 19	Amend Figure to illustrate growth in the 1800s (as well as the current urban form).
Amend paragraph 3.6	Amend paragraph to read: Further, the site is in easy reach of the new Cambridge North rail station, is approximately 4.55.6km to the north west.
Amend paragraph 3.16	“… Brookfields Health Centre, East Barnwell Health Centre and”
Delete paragraph 5.24	Remove paragraph 5.24 (reference to a bus gate)
Amend Figure 43	Amend potential route along Coldham’s Common to follow the railway line and not cut across playing pitches.
Amend paragraph 5.19	“The Weston Homes development will become the immediate western eastern boundary to the site in this location.”
Amend paragraph 5.95	The preferred locations for the primary and secondary schools are shown indicatively on Figure 5231.
Amend Figure 52	Add missing primary & secondary street options and cycle / pedestrian links

 

Councillor Sargeant proposed removing the busgate reference and whole of paragraph 5.2.4.

 

The Committee approved this amendment by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations, plus agreed SPD text changes.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations, plus agreed SPD text changes.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the way forward for (i) the use of available off-site public art S106 funding, (ii) proposed arrangements for the next S106 public art grant-funding round and (iii) a number of public art and public realm projects already allocated S106 funding (including the River Cam public art programme).

Public Question

A member of the public asked a question as set out below.

 

Mrs Stubbs raised the following points:

       i.          Other countries were better at public art.

     ii.          Asked the Council to be more open about public art criteria and who made decisions about it (ie how public art was selected). Requested the Council reviewed this as s106 funding was coming to an end.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager responded, the Public Art Advisory Group met every eight weeks to give advice on public art to the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

One of the ways in which the Council has mitigated the impact of development in Cambridge is through public art and the wider benefits that it brought to the city. However, changes to the national planning system and planning regulations meant that (similar to other S106 contribution types) the scope for doing this was becoming ever more challenging. Officers were exploring options for enabling new public art in future.

 

The report focused on making good use of the off-site public art S106 contributions that the Council used to be able to collect for public art projects beyond the developments themselves.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Noted the changing context for securing public art and the steps being taken to develop new planning policy guidance and a strategy for new public art in Cambridge, in order to set the future direction for enabling high quality public art (see paragraphs 3.4-3.5 in the Officer’s report);

     ii.          Noted the off-site S106 funding availability for public art in Cambridge and the approach to making good use of it through small-scale and larger public art grants and Council-commissioned public art (see section 4);

   iii.          Agreed the arrangements for the 2018 small-scale public art S106 grant funding round (see section 5), including:

·       The timetable for seeking public art grant applications between late January and mid-March 2018, with a priority-setting report back to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in June 2018, and

·       The selection criteria for public art S106 grant applications in 2018;

   iv.          Approved the use of up to £120,000 (from the £450,000 allocated to the River Cam public art programme) for the River Cam public art residency, delegating authority to the Head of Environmental Services, in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Opposition Spokes and Community Services Scrutiny Committee Chair, to appoint the artist and finalise with the artist the nature of the public art outcomes of the residency (see section 6);

    v.          De-allocated the current £75,000 allocated to public realm improvements on Cherry Hinton Road between Hills Road and Rock Road (see section 7).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Referred to section 4.6 of the Officer’s report. Expressed concern that it may be premature to suggest that 2018 small-scale public art grant round could be the last of its kind.

     ii.          Having an artist in residence could be an opportunity to engage children in public art.

   iii.          Asked if the Council could undertake a review of public art already in place to see if it was still wanted by the public.

   iv.          Due to the development area in Trumpington funding should be forthcoming there.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager and Urban Growth Project Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          As off-site S106 funding was running down, the report aimed to manage expectations about reducing opportunities in future.

     ii.          The Cambridge southern fringe had its own public art programme.

   iii.          The table on page 62 of the Officer’s report estimated the availability of public art S106 funding by ward – further checks were being made in order to update the analysis of S106 funding availability.

   iv.          Funding from the Trumpington development area would go towards on-site delivery rather than off-site contributions. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

a) To approve the future approach to community development activity.

b) Note updates regarding implementation of the community facilities strategy.

Matter for Decision

As part of the approval of the Council’s Building Stronger Communities strategy (BSCS) in June 2017, officers were asked to feedback in January 2018 on progress with delivering the strategy; also to review the future approach to community development work and in particular Neighbourhood Community Partnerships & Projects (NCPs).

 

The Officer’s report also provided an update on the Community Centres Strategy work plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the revised approach and resourcing of the Council’s outreach community development work as outlined in section 4 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved the approach to the funding and support for NCPs from 2018/19 as outlined in section 5 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Community Funding and Development Manager said detailed feasibility work regarding the Meadows & Buchan Street Community Centres would be reported back to committee in June 2018.

     ii.          The Head of Community Services said Storey’s Field Community Centre was overseen by Storey’s Field Trust, established by the University of Cambridge and the Council. It was due to open in February 2018.

 

The City Council had a meeting planned with Clay Farm construction contract administrators (ADP) on 19 January 2018. Ward Councillors would be updated post meeting. The Community Centre was expected to open in the near future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Public Question

A Ward Councillor asked a question as set out below.

 

Councillor Bick raised the following points:

       i.          Welcomed the report and involvement of the community in events.

     ii.          Wished to avoid damage to open spaces and use by unplanned events.

   iii.          Queried changes to the table in Appendix 1:

a.    Were these maximum figures or targets?

b.    What was the current usage?

c.    Residents had some concerns about the number of events taking place.

   iv.          Experienced difficulty accessing on-line consultation reports referenced in the Officer’s report.

    v.          Event organisers should pay for damage to the surface of open spaces. Prevention was better than cure. This may require more supervision during set up and clear away.

   vi.          Asked Officers/Executive Councillor to review the maximum number of people allowable on Parker’s Piece events with a view to reducing it from 5,000.

 vii.          Asked the Executive Councilor to clarify which events she would not allow to use open spaces eg business promotion corporate events. The intention was to be clear upfront that open spaces were for residents’ use.

 

The Chair clarified to the Committee that Cambridge Live provided events on behalf of the City Council.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager responded:

       i.          (P39 / addendum sheet) Appendix 1 - Event Number and Limits by location. The table did not list 2011 figures (to give a benchmark), but figures in the proposed 2018 policy should be the same except for ‘Neighbourhood Parks’ which had an allowance for 2 medium sized events.

     ii.          Consultation papers were listed as background documents in the Officer’s report and therefore accessible upon request. The documents would be put on the City Council’s event page in future as another point of access.

   iii.          Officers were already using their discretion to reject most of corporate events if they were likely to be of limited or no public interest, and that ward councillors often challenged any the officers didn't reject out of hand.

   iv.          Three out of a possible five events had been hosted on Christs Pieces. These had been small although larger ones were possible.

    v.          It was intended to modify the job descriptions for Streets and Open Spaces Officers to allow on-site supervision of events.

 

The Executive Councillor referred to P29.

       i.          Medium sized events of 500-5,000 attendees could be hosted on open spaces. The figures were guiding criteria for event size (not targets), the land area would limit how many people could attend.

     ii.          Appropriate sized events would be held in appropriate places with appropriate footfall.

 

Matter for Decision

The hosting of events on city parks and open spaces had become increasingly popular with both local and national event providers.  The Council received around 300 enquiries for events every year, hosting between 80 and 100 with a range of individual and very different activities.

 

The proposed new policy aimed to manage the expectations of those seeking to host events in our parks and open spaces, as well as establishing, from the outset, a greater understanding of the constraints, within which event organisers must operate.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Approved and adopt the policy for the management and use of our parks and open spaces for events, as set out in appendix A;

     ii.          Approved the proposed new fees and charges pricing structure for events on our parks and open spaces, as set out in appendix B;

   iii.          Instructed Officers to pursue the use of information technology to bring efficiencies to the event application process; and

   iv.          Instructed officers to seek and profile funding to make improvements to utility infrastructure to reduce the environmental impact of events, and training/ advice to local community groups to support improvements in the management of events.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Honeycomb surfaces at public events were welcomed by people with disabilities.

     ii.          Open spaces needed some maintenance work to repair damage after events.

   iii.          Suggested people were less likely to ‘make good’ if public spaces were affected by deterioration in quality caused by cumulative impact from events.

   iv.          Proactive management by event managers during events could reduce their environmental impact and reduce the need to tidy up afterwards. For example planning to cook less food to reduce waste, and avoiding single use trays.

    v.          Expressed concern about noise from events on Christs Pieces impacting on neighbouring residents.

   vi.          There appeared to be no charge to event organisers for the loss of community public space whilst repairs were being undertaken.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Sustainability/waste management was covered in event terms and conditions to minimise waste and maximise recycling.

     ii.          The use of non-domestic animals was a reason to refuse permission for events. The use of animals was of concern to the public. The City Council followed guidance set out in legislation eg the prohibition of dangerous animals in public spaces. Falconry was not covered in the scope of the Officer’s report to committee, a separate one could be brought back in future.

 

The Senior Asset Development Officer said management plans were being worked up for Jesus Green and Christ Pieces. Biodiversity was an important consideration. There was an option to hold medium sized events (up to 4,999 people) on these open spaces, but the space available would determine which events were authorised. The focus was more on 500-1,000 people events.

 

The Executive Councillor said officers used City Council policy criteria to judge the appropriateness of proposed events. Officers consulted councillors on events in public spaces and gave recommendations to approve them or not.

 

   iii.          Officers were confident they had the ability to take a measured view to allow events of various sizes on public open spaces. Events were timetabled to alternate the use of spaces between public and commercials event usage where possible to avoid two back to back bookings. Councillor input was sought pre-event and residents’ feedback after large events.

   iv.          Cattle grazed on Coldhams Common from 1 April to 1 November. They could be moved on/off the common for events, but this was kept to a minimum.

    v.          Undertook to investigate concerns about people driving on the grass in Christ Pieces and Jesus Green. Unauthorised access was suspected to be the cause.

   vi.          The condition of open spaces was monitored pre/post-event and the organiser billed to make up the difference between the two.

 vii.          A stand pipe for drinking water was provided at events. There was a risk this could not always be provided. Suggested investigating the possibility of putting in more stand pipes in future.

viii.          Charity or commercial rates could be charged for events. The charity rate applied to volunteer and not for profit events. Events that charged a fee would incur the commercial rate.

 

The Senior Asset Development Officer said an administration application fee was charged to discourage spurious applications. He recommended event organisers made an application for multiple events in one go to reduce their administration charge.

 

Councillors O’Connell and Sinnott requested a change to the text setting out reasons to refuse events 6.2e (agenda P34).

 

It was agreed nem con to use equality statement terms. Amendments to Policy text discussed at Committee to be agreed by Officers, Chair, Opposition Spokes and Executive Councillor.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the Communities portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Review of Charges:

       i.          Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to the Officer’s report.

 

Revenue:

     ii.          Noted that there are no revenue bids or savings presented for this portfolio.

 

Capital:

   iii.          Noted that there are no capital bids or savings presented for this portfolio.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services).

 

In response to Members’ questions the Sport & Recreation Manager said that GLL had charged the same (£10 card) fee for five years.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the Streets and Opens Spaces portfolio that are included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

Review of Charges:

       i.          Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to the Officer’s report.

 

Revenue:

     ii.          Considered the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B.

 

Capital:

   iii.          Considered the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C.

   iv.          Adjusted capital funding for item (iii).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services).

 

In response to Members’ questions:

       i.          (P96) The Principal Accountant (Services) undertook to clarify post meeting where capital bid benefits would fall as they covered two portfolios.

     ii.          The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said Silver Street Toilets had an ageing infrastructure and there was a lot of demand for the facility. The intention was to improve capacity and facilities available. These would be appropriate for a sensitive area.

   iii.          The Executive Councillor said there was an allocation in the budget to provide funding for the ‘tree for a baby scheme’ and for the promotion of it to involve more people.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillor Barnett did not vote.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Community Grant awards 2018-19. Updates include Compact Refresh, V4C, Area Committee Grants.

Matter for Decision

The Committee received an annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary and community not-for-profit organisations.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2018-19, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, subject to the budget approval in February 2018 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Noted the updates on Volunteer for Cambridge and the Compact.

   iii.          Noted the corporate review of grant funding to the voluntary sector to ensure transparent, accountable process are implemented.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

The Community Funding and Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The discretionary rate relief available varied according to how well projects met eligibility criteria.

     ii.          Projects that did not meet eligibility criteria were signposted to other funds.

   iii.          Organisations could make multiple project funding applications, each project would be treated on its own merit. Officers reviewed and monitored to ensure appropriate funding was given to each organisation.

   iv.          Officers worked with various organisations who were undergoing staff changes. Projects needed to be viable in order to receive funding. All projects listed in the Officer’s report required further work so those with staffing issues would not be disadvantaged.

    v.          Funding could be given in full or part with further contributions in stages. Any unallocated funding would be put back into the pot for reallocation during the year.

   vi.          Officers worked alongside projects during the applicant process to provide support. Those who were unsuccessful were not encouraged to reapply unless support can be given to improve their re-application. Feedback was available and signposts to more appropriate funding.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Council secures S106 contributions to mitigate the impact of new development. Every ward has benefitted from new/improved community facilities as a result.

 

The Officer’s report set out community facility improvement projects, already allocated/earmarked S106 funding, and the next steps to move them forward. It then proposed the approach to the next ‘community facilities’ S106 funding round in the context of the remaining availability of S106 funding and the new Building Stronger Communities Strategy (BSCS).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor agreed:

       i.          To combine all ‘community facilities’ S106 funding available to enable the Executive Councillor to make all future decisions on the use of these funds in the context of the official S106 regulations and any comments from local councillors on eligible local proposals (see report section 4);

     ii.          To confirm the existing community facilities S106 allocations for grants to Cambridgeshire County Council (see paragraphs 5.1 – 5.4), which are

·       £100,000 for additional community meeting space within the new Milton Road Library, subject to community use agreement, and

·       £255,000 for additional community meeting space within the new East Barnwell Community Centre, subject to planning permission, business case approval and community use agreement;

   iii.          To allocate to the Cherry Hinton Community Hub improvement project (see paragraphs 5.5–5.9), subject to planning and business case approvals:

·       All available generic ‘community facilities’ S106 contributions from Cherry Hinton ward and/or from developments in other wards within a 15 minute walking distance (around £163,700).

·       All available specific S106 contributions (around £37,600) for the Cherry Hinton Community Hub from nearby developments;

   iv.          The arrangements for the 2018 ‘community facilities’ S106 funding round (see section 6), including the timetable for seeking proposals and grant applications between late January and mid-March 2018, with a priority-setting report back to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in June 2018.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Project Manager referred to section 4 of his report and said local councillors would get the chance to comment on eligible, nearby project proposals, even if located in another ward.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

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

 

This report detailed an alleged unauthorised change of use of a domestic residential dwelling into a commercial short-term visitor accommodation letting use at the premises.

 

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

 

The Planning Enforcement Officer updated his report by referring to details on the amendment sheet:

 

Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

 

Authority is sought to serve an enforcement notice as recommended in the committee report or to serve an amended notice removing any steps no longer required due to compliance.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation 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 ten years, namely without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to Aparthotel style serviced 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 of the Officer’s report, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5.

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

   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 non-compliance with the enforcement notice.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a roof extension including raising the ridge height, a rear dormer, an additional front roof light and a change of use of the property from a guesthouse to a large scale HMO which would accommodate 12 persons.

 

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.

 

This item was deferred as the Applicant’s Agent registered to speak and then withdrew when informed by Officers there were no Objectors who also wished to speak. This was incorrect. Councillors agreed to defer the item to another committee date when all parties would have an opportunity to speak.

 

Councillor Sarris left the meeting to attend another commitment.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of a single storey

extension to the side and rear.

 

The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to details on the amendment sheet:

 

Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

 

Due to the proximity of the proposal to the boundary, I consider that the following condition limiting construction hours should be attached.

 

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)

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Expressed concern that the extra build extended almost up to the boundary.

     ii.          Said the Case Officer confirmed in her report that the relationship between the two dwellings was very tight.

   iii.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Being in a tunnel effect and related sense of enclosure.

b.    Siting.

c.    Mass.

d.    Unattractive design.

   iv.          Suggested the development did not meet Local Plan policies 3/14 (visual dominance), 3/1 (sustainable development), 3/11 (design of external spaces) and 3/4 (responding to context).

 

The Chair read a statement submitted by the Applicant’s Agent who was unable to attend the Committee. The Agent’s statement supported the application.

 

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.

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a first floor rear extension to create four self-contained studio flats and proposed recessing of part of first floor rear wall and relocation of ducts.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report to amend condition 9.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Expected disturbance due to courtyard noise during the afternoon and evening.

     ii.          High velocity extractor fans would be noisy. Welcomed monitoring of the impact on neighbours.

   iii.          Queried if any mitigation factors were possible.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the application for retrospective 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 subject to condition no.9 being re-worded as follows:

 

Prior to occupation of development, a layout plan showing the storage of facilities for waste including waste for recycling and composting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The layout plan shall identify the specific positions of where wheeled bins will be stationed. Details of the security/ access of the bin store shall also be provided. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall be retained for their intended use thereafter.

 

Reason - To provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 4/13 and 5/2).

The Committee received a S73 application to vary condition 2 of ref no: 16/1281/FUL (the redevelopment of three existing residential flats and demolition of commercial workshop to create 6 new residential units with associated cycle and bin storage and new landscaped amenity spaces) with new drawings to show retrospective and proposed alterations to roof design, increase in height, alteration to south elevation, reduction in height of the boundary wall and addition of windows and rooflights.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the S73 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 the existing ticket offices and pontoons, erection of replacement ticket offices and pontoons

 

Mr Wood (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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 Sarris 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 replacement of ticket office and pontoons.

 

The Planner updated her report to amend text in the table (#8.21) on P321: “The addition of the ramp will significantly improve access to the river for less able people with mobility issues.”

 

Mr Wood (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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.

 

Councillor Sarris 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 demolition of existing buildings and construction of two new buildings containing 6 x 1 bedroom apartments and 3 x 2 bedroom apartments. Provision of on-site parking and bin & bike storage

 

Mr Jackson (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.

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey front extension, part single storey, part two storey rear extension, first floor side extension and change of use to 8-person HMO (House in Multiple Occupation).

 

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

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to #2.2 in the Officer’s report. Residents had concerns about how the City Council handled planning applications concerning this address since 2011.

     ii.          Parking/access.

   iii.          Noise and overlooking concerns.

   iv.          The house would be in multiple occupation.

    v.          Intermittent building works occurred over several years. Residents were unclear what the design would look like when completed.

   vi.          The design was out of context with the area.

 vii.          Builders working on 29 Fernlea Road trespassed on neighbour’s property.

viii.          The 29 Fernlea Road property encroached on neighbour’s land.

   ix.          The Applicant was not building to approved plans (#2.2 in the Officer’s report).

    x.          Officers had been on-site and found unreported building work (referred to enforcement investigation #2.4 in the Officer’s report). Residents were concerned this work was not included in the current application.

   xi.          Referred to #6.1 in the Officer’s report: “The development may therefore impose additional parking demands upon the on-street parking on the surrounding streets and, whilst this is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon highway safety, there is potentially an impact upon residential amenity which the Planning Authority may wish to consider”.

 

The Committee:

 

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

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason:

 

The scale of the extension has an overbearing and enclosing impact on the occupant of the adjoining property No. 27 and therefore adversely impacts on their amenity.  As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of a 1.5 storey 2 bed dwelling to the rear of 87 Histon Road with access from North Street, with integrated store for bins and bikes.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Dominating design that would be out of context/character with the area.

     ii.          Loss of privacy and light.

   iii.          Overlooking.

   iv.          Lack of scale drawings. Inaccuracies in submitted documents.

    v.          Exacerbation of existing access and parking issues.

   vi.          Sewerage and refuse collection arrangements.

 

Councillor O’Reilly (Abbey Ward Councillor, speaking on behalf of Councillor Todd-Jones) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The property would be 2 storeys not 1.5 as listed.

     ii.          The development would be in a Conservation Area, on an unadopted (highway) track.

   iii.          The application had no parking space, this would exacerbate existing parking issues and displace others in an already constrained area.

   iv.          Suggested the design would:

a.    Dominate the streetscene.

b.    Lead to a loss of light and overlooking.

c.    Not meet Local Plan criteria 3/10 (subdivision of existing plot, access and parking) or 3/12 (design of new buildings).

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 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 alterations and extensions including the addition of 2no. dormers to the front elevation; 1no. dormer to the rear elevation; an upwards extension to the rear closet wing; a new access from the ground floor level to the rear garden via an external staircase; a double height rear infill extension including lowering of the basement floor; internal alterations to the building layout; and the demolition and erection of a new garage.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Residents had no great concerns about the original scheme; but did about the current one as the proposed structure was larger, deeper and blocked people’s views.

     ii.          Would be happy to keep the void in the proposed plan.

   iii.          Expressed the following specific concerns:

a.    Sash window and the mass of brickwork around it was out of character with the area.

b.    Loss of privacy and amenity.

c.    Overlooking, which would not be mitigated by the privacy screen.

d.    Loss of light.

e.    Designs had been submitted and withdrawn various times, now residents were confused what proposals were going forward.

f.      Suggested the proposed plans contained errors and what had been built did not match approved plans.

 

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

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Expressed concern about the application as work on the house did not conform to the approved submitted plan.

     ii.          Residents had not objected to the previous application as they did not think the (now approved) plans would lead to loss of privacy/amenity.

   iii.          The (setback) basement door and privacy screen would exacerbate the loss of light and sense of enclosure for neighbours. Tabled a document to illustrate this point. The Planning Officer confirmed information shown was already in the public domain.

   iv.          The proposed planting between the staircase and wall would exacerbate the light loss issue unless it was continuously pruned.

    v.          Neighbours had concerns about overlooking. They would have strongly objected if the current application had been submitted in 2015.

   vi.          The Applicant appeared to have been badly advised on building design by his builder, but this should not affect neighbours by Planning Committee’s acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Members voted on reasons for refusal:

·       Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to accept: Impact on neighbour of loss of light and sense of enclosure due to the privacy screen, basement extension and staircase.

·       Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept: Impact of design of rear projection.

·       Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) not to accept: Block like rear dormer window.

·       Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) not to accept: Front dormer window not built in accordance with approved plan.

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

The proposed single storey basement extension, external staircase and its screen would overshadow the basement kitchen door and windows of No. 14 Brookside and its rear patio area. It would also appear overbearing and enclosing when viewed from within this kitchen and from the patio. As such the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of the occupiers of No. 14 and is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The proposed extensions by virtue of the heavy design and form of the rear brick ground floor element would appear discordant and incongruous in relation to adjoining properties. It would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the quality and character of this Building of Local Interest. As such the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4, 3/14, 4/11 and 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

 

The application sought outline permission for the erection of up 245 dwellings, including affordable housing, a nursery and/or community facility, open space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works following the demolition of all existing buildings on the site.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a late request for a statement to be read out in objection to the application from a local resident. The Chair disallowed the statement due to the late submission. However, the Officer was asked to cover the issue of existing properties in close proximity to the boundary of the proposed site in her presentation, which was the substance of the late submission.

 

Paul Belton (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 as amended by pre-committee amendments set out on the amendment sheet. Also subject to completion of S106 Agreement, and delegated authority to confirm either contributions or no contributions towards healthcare facilities following consultation with consultees.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Development of 37,160 sqm for D1 academic floor space to accommodate the relocation of the Cavendish Laboratory, namely; all associated infrastructure including drainage, utilities, landscape and cycle parking; strategic open space to the south and west of the new Cavendish; modifications to JJ Thomson Avenue to provide disabled parking and changes to road surface materials; alterations to the existing access to Madingley Road to the north west to enable servicing; and demolition of Merton Hall Farmhouse and removal of existing Vet School access road from JJ Thomson Avenue.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

Professor Richard Phillips addressed the Committee on behalf on the applicant in support of the application.

 

Matthew Danish addressed the Committee on behalf of West Cambridge Active Travel in support of the application and stated the following:

       i.          Welcomed the plan.

     ii.          Thanked the applicant for the consultation and engagement.

   iii.          Hoped to have further opportunities to engage as the project progressed.

 

The committee expressed concerns about the order that applications for the wider West Cambridge site were being considered. Officers confirmed that although the outline application for the wider site had not yet come before the Planning Committee for determination, this application could be considered as a stand-alone application as, in the officer’s view,  it was not prejudicial to the determination of the wider outline 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, subject to the completion of a s.106 agreement and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers, as amended by pre-committee amendments set out on the amendment sheet.

The minutes of the meeting of the 10^th January 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record.