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 Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for extensions and reconfiguration works to the existing buildings to provide 10 residential units (net increase of 7 units compared to existing), including bin and cycle storage.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and garage, and erection of a one-and-a-half storey 5-bed dwelling and garage.

 

The Committee:

 

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

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey extension, alterations and change of use to 6-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) sui generis.

 

The Committee:

 

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

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of 8 and 8A Oak Tree Avenue and erection of two dwellings.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following concerns:

       i.          Overlooking and overshadowing.

     ii.          The impact of construction traffic in the area.

   iii.          The amount of (construction) time to demolish the old buildings and put in new ones.

   iv.          The impact of the development on neighbours’ access, amenities and sewerage arrangements.

    v.          The area needs redevelopment, but residents had concerns about the design of this application.

   vi.          The plans were unclear so residents had queries about the proposed room uses and quality of materials.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers. It was agreed that through the discharge of the landscape conditions officers would seek some planting to the front of the site subject to further consideration of the character of the area.

The Committee received an application for change of use of ground floor from a takeaway to a single dwelling, including changes to the external envelope and erection of outbuilding.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of a terrace of three, two and a half storey dwellings following the demolition of the existing property and associated works.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The development would exacerbate existing parking issues.

     ii.          The light study was misleading and a lot would be lost in summer.

   iii.          Expected overlooking from the development into rear neighbours’ homes and gardens.

   iv.          Loss of amenity and privacy.

    v.          The building would be 3 storeys in effect and so taller than neighbours.

   vi.          Expected security concerns.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for the change of use of the existing dwelling to two flats including extensions to the building and front cycle and bin storage structures. Permission is also sought for the erection of a one bedroom bungalow in the rear garden.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The speaker lived near 560 Newmarket Road and was speaking on behalf of local residents.

     ii.          Expressed the following concerns:

a.    Plans for the bungalow would:

1.                   Lead to over development of site.

2.                   Set a precedent for buildings in the area.

b.    Shared access of the locked gate would lead to safety and security concerns.

c.    Impact of the development on neighbour’s amenities eg privacy. Trees could help mitigate this but would lead to loss of light and sense of enclosure.

d.    Existing parking and access issues would be exacerbated.

 

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

 

The Committee Manager read a statement to the Committee about the application from Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor).

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Objected to the proposal in his capacity as Ward Councillor.

     ii.          There was likely to be overshadowing of adjoining properties, contrary to Local Plan policy 3/14.

   iii.          The proposed changes to the frontage would create a negative impact on the streetscape and character of the area, contrary to Local Plan policies 3/12 and 3/14.

   iv.          There was likely to be a loss of residential amenity (eg fear of overlooking) contrary to Local Plan policy 3/10.

    v.          Concerns about noise and parking arrangements.

   vi.          Impact on the ability of current residents to maintain existing properties.

 

The Committee:

 

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

 

Refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2)

 

1.    The cumulative impact of the proposed ground floor extensions and bungalow would result in an overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the excessive footprint and resulting massing. As a result the proposal would detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies 3/4, 3/10 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1)

 

2.    The cumulative impact of the proposed ground floor extensions and bungalow would result in inadequate external amenity space for future occupants and poor pedestrian and vehicular access arrangements for occupants of the bungalow by virtue of its backland location. For this reason the proposal would fail to provide a satisfactory quality of living environment and standard of amenity for future occupiers. As such it is contrary to policies 3/7, 3/10, 3/12 and 5/2 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) not to include living space or conversion of dwelling into flats (ref policies 3/7 and 5/2) as reasons for refusal.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site.

 

The Officer updated the Committee that since the publication of the report the Ecology Officer had requested a condition for a bat survey to be carried out prior to the demolition of the Coach House. 

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Raised concerns regarding the demolition of the Coach House. Asked that condition 4 be amended so the Coach House was demolished by hand, and not mechanical means, as this would result in damage to Kingston Street properties which would be a civil matter.

 

Andy Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers with the following additional informatives:

 

1.    New development can sometimes cause inconvenience, disturbance and disruption to local residents, businesses and passers by. As a result the City Council runs a Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed at promoting high standards of care during construction. The City Council encourages the developer of the site, through its building contractor, to join the scheme and agree to comply with the model Code of Good Practice, in the interests of good neighbourliness. Information about the scheme can be obtained from The Considerate Contractor Project Officer in the Planning Department (Tel: 01223 457121).

2.    The applicant shall ensure all building material following demolition is sustainably disposed either by being reused on or off site where possible or sent to be an approved waste handling contractor to be recycled in order to reduce waste being sent to landfill.

3.     Notwithstanding the collection/delivery hours specified in Condition 3 the submission of a Traffic Management Plan under Condition 10 shall specify hours during which material shall be removed from the site to ensure that the impact of heavy vehicle movements on Mill Road is reduced as far as practicable.

 

The Committee received a Section 73 application.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 26 of 17/0850/S73 for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus development to allow a variation in construction working times for the AstraZeneca development only. The proposal is to extend specific limited works for internal construction working hours from the currently approved 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Fridays, 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays to the amended times of 07:00 to 20:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays and 07:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays, for specific works only.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the Section 73 application in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of Jupiter House and Leda House and the construction of a single new office building comprising 14,274sqm (GIA) of Class B1(a)/Class B1(b) floorspace with a single basement providing 98 car parking spaces and 482 cycle parking spaces at ground level. A ‘pocket park’ is to be formed between the building and the boundary with Kett House.

 

The Officer referred to the amendments contained within the amendment sheet. The Officer provided a verbal update on a further representation received from the owner/occupier of No. 30 Lyndewode Road regarding transport mitigation and provided informal advice from the Highways Authority in response

 

Mike Derbyshire (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Richard Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 Expressed concern regarding the impact of the development on the area surrounding building.

ii.               The growth at the station was much higher than expected compared to when the CB1 development was initially granted outline permission.

iii.             Every application which came on the back of the original outline permission was bigger and wider.

iv.             It wasn’t just vehicular traffic which needed to be assessed but also cycle and pedestrian traffic.

v.              Reference was made to controlled pedestrian crossings in the transport assessment but these did not exist.

vi.             There had been no mention of Great Northern Road which took traffic without pedestrian crossings.

vii.           Requested a cumulative impact assessment of the whole area.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation subject to Planning Committee being satisfied as to the adequacy of transport mitigation measures.

The Committee received a Section 73 application.

 

The application sought approval to remove condition 33 of permission 13/1041/S73 (noise levels in external leisure/amenity areas).

 

The Officer referred to additional third party representations contained in the amendment sheet.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Solutions to mitigate noise levels had not been looked at.

     ii.          In June 2016 his family enjoyed a summer on the private balconies, in late 2016 the road opened to traffic and he has not been able to spend time on the private balcony.

   iii.          Noise levels were 4 times larger than those recommended by the World Health Organisation. These were very serious noise levels.

   iv.          The developer was seeking to remove a condition that they never intended to comply with.

    v.          The balcony was an important part of the flats floor space.

   vi.          Will lose a massive quality of life and potentially reduced value of the flat.

 

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

 

Ann Sinnott (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 She was struck by the difference between what the Objectors had said and what the Applicant’s Agent had said. 

ii.               Despite what the guidelines said the road was incredibly narrow and noise levels were dreadful.

iii.             Could not understand why the advice of the Environmental Health Officer was disregarded, they stated that further information was required and advised that winter gardens should have been in place.

iv.             The request for the condition to be lifted pre-supposed that the noise issue would not change but the noise in the area would only get worse.

v.              The condition should remain.

 

Richard Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 When residents bought and moved into the properties it was with the benefit of condition 33 and the balcony being an amenity space.

ii.               Outdoor noise levels were not to exceed 60db.

iii.             Rejected the contention that balconies did not form part of the amenity space. They were large enough to be used as an amenity space and were used as such.

iv.             Turning the balcony into a winter garden would be inappropriate. Acoustic barriers could be fitted and have the same mitigating effect.

v.              The developer had chosen to do nothing.

vi.             During pre-application discussions there was a formal response regarding careful acoustic mitigation to achieve 50db limit but this was not incorporated into the design.

vii.           The British standard had been addressed by Environmental Health Officers but this should be designed to the lowest practical level.

viii.         The developer could lay particular tarmac down which created less noise and the speed bumps could be changed.

ix.             The amenity space behind the flats was public open space this was different to amenity space provided by the balcony.

x.              Mitigation measures did exist and there should be a condition requiring an acoustic panel in the balcony if the application was approved.

xi.             An increase in noise from 50-60db was a 200% increase.

xii.           Referred to a planning appeal decision where the inspector thought an unacceptable noise environment was dependant on not opening windows.

xiii.         Requested a deferral for the Committee to consider the planning appeal decision and also questioned if the correct people were notified as the number of residences notified of the application was limited to 3 or 4 residencies in Northern Road.   

 

The Committee:

Decided not to defer the application as Cllr Robertson had suggested as it was a long standing application already.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

Condition 33 should not be removed because this would result in the continued harmful noise levels having an adverse effect on the amenity of the occupants of the existing flats contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.