Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, Chair. So this application is here at committee as one of the applicants as an employee of the South Cancer Council. This is a joint application for two properties, number 8892, the station road piston. This proposal is for the retention of raising the chimney A to the required 1.8 meter height above the new rich. This is a joint application as the chimney serves both properties. The works have started, hence this application is for the retention of the chimney. The officer recommendation is to approve this application. The application site are two dwellings, number 8892 station road in the development framework of histen. The property is a part of a terrace of four grade two listed cottages. The site is located within the histen conservation area, which is outlined in pink on the map. At the properties front onto station road, within the immediate setting, there is a fairly mixed character with business and industrial buildings to the south and west of the site. These photographs here show the front and rear elevations as existing. This is prior to the works, you can see that there is some variation in the chimneys. So these are the proposed plans. The existing height of the chimney stands at 0.9 meters. The height of the proposed chimney will be 1.2 meters with a 0.6 meter pop resulting in 1.8 meter chimney stack. The width and the height of the chimney will not be altered. Within the terrace, the existing chimneys all vary in height. The proposed materials are to match the existing brick and mortar to the existing chimney. The conservation officer has reviewed this and has recommended that a condition is added to ensure that the brick and mortar match the existing as close as possible. So on balance, the increase in height is considered to be modest in scale and the proposed materials are to match existing. The proposal therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Due to the scale and massing of the chimney inciting on the roof slope, the proposal will not unduly impact upon residential amenity. The conservation officer has been consulted on this application and considers that the proposal will not cause harm to the character of the histone conservation area or the listed building. The conservation officer has recommended for a condition to be added requiring the brick work and mortar to match the existing. There are no material planning considerations to refuse this application. The officer therefore recommends that the application is approved subject to the recommended condition. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, I would know also that I'm the local member for histone and I haven't discussed this. I didn't even know it's going to be a committee that comes to the matter of fresh. Sorry, do we have any points of clarification, please? No, thank you very much. Do we have any points for debate? Can I take the matter by information? Do we approve by information? I agree. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Now, can we come to propose that we approve it? Sorry. Sorry, I formally need to propose that we approve it. Can I propose that we approve the application by affirmation? Thank you. Okay, we come now to the second application, please. Thank you, Chair. This proposal is for the listed building consent for the retention of raising chimney A to the required 1.8 litre height above the new ridge. At the application site 88 to 92 station road histone, the officer recommendation is to approve this application. The application site is 88 and 92 station road in the development framework of histone. The properties are part of a row of four cottages of early 19th century origin listed at grade 2. The cottages are timber framed and rendered standing at one story with accommodated attics under a long straw-thashed roof. They are located on the edge of the histone conservation area. This slide shows the existing plans prior to the works. Here are the proposed chimneys. The existing chimney 0.9 metres, the proposal is to increase the height to 1.8 metres. This height is required by insurance companies for thatched roofs. The conservation officer considers that this type of alteration can now be considered acceptable. Due to meeting this policy requirement. The conservation officer has acknowledged that the proposed chimney will unbalance the chimney stacks. However, when considering that the existing pops are already at different heights and the stacks are not identical, it will reduce this impact. The proposal will retain similar appearance to the existing chimney as the materials are to match the existing brick and water. A condition will be added to require these to be matched. The planning balance, the proposal is not considered to cause harm to the character of the histone conservation area. The proposal will not cause harm to the character and historic fabric of the listed building. There are no material planning considerations to refuse this application. The officer therefore recommends that this application is approved to subject to the recommended conditions. Now, can I assume that we do not have any further points of clarification or debate? I propose that we approve this application. Can I take it by affirmation? I take it to Councillor Fehner's seconder, sorry. Thank you very much indeed. The application is approved. Now, we come to item seven on the agenda. This is a provisional TPO number 07 strokes 2024 confirmation of a cheap preservation order for a number of trees on the site of 25 high speed hawks. Can we have a presentation, please? Yes, so good morning, Councillors. So, I'm here today to present to you to get your approval, your consent for the confirmation of the provisional TPO, which was served at 25 high street hawks, which was on the February of this year. So, just given an introduction and background to this is that the image shown on the site is, sorry, on the slide is of the site, once clearance had began. So, on the 29th of January this year, it was made to the Council, it was made to the Council by members of public. That cyclists had taken place and mass tree clearance had happened, officers attended sites on the next day, and confirming the mass clearance, which led to the creation and serving of an emergency preservation order. So, the preservation order last six months, allowing for the Council to consider which trees are worthy of a full TPO and also to allow for mandatory consultation periods, receiving any objections or representations. And as part of the provisional periods, there were no objections received today. So, the location of the site is kind of described central north of hawksden, slightly set back from the high streets, and the bordering the river can, however, can be seen from from a public access, which will explain show later slide. So, just this slide here is just to show the tree canopy cover over a span of 20 years. So, from 2003 right to 2023, but it's it's confidence to say there was tree tree canopy cover beyond. Obviously, obviously 2003 and using aerial imagery, it's suggested there isn't much change in the canopy until obviously activities started this year. So, the original order so the provisional TPO was an aerial protection of all trees to site. So, the final recommendations and modifications of which trees should be protected are highlighted obviously on this slide. If I may, working from top right where you can see T1 and working anti clockwise, just to give you an idea of the breakdown of trees, which should be protected or recommended for protection. So, we've got T1 is sick more, T2 is a horse chestnut, T3 is a walnut, G1 is a group of beach trees around 46 in the group. G2 is a group of Norway maple around 6 trees. G3 is a group of field maple and Norway maple, consistent with five trees, T4 is one ash tree, G4 is a row of poplars along the river, T5 is a willow, G5 is a group of three horse chestnuts, 13 beach trees and two silver leaf maple. G6 is an estimate of 10 beach trees and one sick more. T7 is an Asa species Norway maple. Now, I will mention G7, there was a recommendation from a neighbouring property to exclude these group, which are compresses, so cypress trees, which will close proximity to property and residents' concerns that they may cause an issue in the future. So, G7 is recommended to be excluded because of the species and proximity to neighbouring property. G8 is a roughly 8 to 10 beach trees. G9 is one walnut tree and 13 beach trees and T8, which is kind of central within the site, is a whole milk. So, just to recap, G7 is a group of conifer species that is recommending not to be within your final order. So, just this slide is just a viewpoint from the main high street of Hawxton. The left hand image is the nicks to the village sign. The tree canopies, you can see, are the trees in question behind the houses. So, the right hand image is directly in front of the access to 25 high street Hawxton. You can see the yellow highlighted area is the poplars. In the foreground there's a sick more and then it's the left of that image as the tops of the beach trees. So, further afield, there is a permissive access, which runs from Cambridge Road and winds through agricultural land to Little Chelford. From this point, you can actually see the canopies of the trees were far and then make your way more central to this permissive access. The trees become more noticeable with the landscape and obviously complementing to the area. So, to summarize this, it's essentially to confirm TPO in 2024 with the mentioned modifications and there have not been any objections to this. Thank you very much, Adrian. Do we have now points of clarification? Do we have any points of clarification? Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Questionally, in the previous where you had the group of trees, you mentioned the T7, but I couldn't find the T7. Did I hear you wrong? Sorry, sorry, I need this one for a T7. Yes, it should be. There's G6, there's T6 and G7, well, there's no T7. Yes, sorry, that's T6, it should be the mismarked bottom right, I believe it's the ASER. Does that make sense? You've got G6 and then T6. Yeah. Yeah. Which, so T7 is supposed to be T6. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Do you mean that T6 is actually T7? Yes, thank you. Sorry. Thank you, I do have a question. You have an ASH on the site, which is being proposed for protection. Is this in good health? Is there likely to be a problem to die back? It's no fair question, so part of the assessment, the evaluation, we can see the health at the time of the evaluation tree was seen to be in good health. Thank you, Councillor Hanley. Could I ask the G7 that you suggest will be omitted from this order? Yes. What is the address of the property in front of it? You know, not off on top of my head of the actual... Right, I'm just wondering, okay, because I'm trying to find, I'm looking at Google Maps and I'm trying to find where... A tree might affect someone's garden, and I can't see it. Yeah, so in respect to the G7 being... so they're... they believe to be Monterey's cypress, and they can get quite big. And so, again, part of the evaluation system, we've got to take in consideration any recommendations, so part of the consultation period, and I think it would not be appropriate to protect these trees because force the ability of issues related to the property. Does that make sense? Okay, well, I can't see, as I say, I'm looking at street view, and I can't see anywhere where a tree would affect a property, but it would be nice to know what the address was and whether or not there's an access point into the land in the centre of the trees. You see what I'm saying? So the access point to the site, the access point to the site, sorry, is from... so that's where T1 is, that's the access point into the site. Okay, thank you. Councillor... Dr. Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Just further to that, it's the reason because the trees get big by the roots. So, you know, we're talking potentially 50 foot in height or more. And looking at, obviously, the image, you can see they're quite close because it evergreens, essentially, it wouldn't be appropriate in the sense because of proximity and the size they would get. And yes, there can be potential issues in the future to the adjacent property. I think they grow similar to, say, what do you call them? The root systems. Yeah, the root systems. Yeah, the roots, obviously, do expand, but it's not just the roots itself. It's the open canopy being an evergreen, you know, it will obviously approach over. Councillor Fing. Thank you, Councillor Fing. Quite a few questions about G7 and the proximity to the buildings. We can see, though, which might not be visible on street view. It was quite well set back. But I just wondered, it's a Monterey Cypress, I think. Do we have any photographs you can show of that or? No, no, unfortunately not. Thank you very much. Do we have any, I'll come to the debate, do we have any debates upon? Councillor HOWARD Williams. Thank you, Chair, I'll just say, I know, obviously, G7, and I think it might be because if we look at page, 32 of the report, it is, I think the T6 square is blocking it. Obviously, it's quite close to those buildings there. No matter what, probably why, particularly the house, which is T6, it was on. I think that the, I can understand why residents would be concerned about that canopy, given how set back that house is from the road. All in all, taking G7 aside, I mean, it pretty much is trying to keep everything that is now left and is there. And so I think, I think that's probably the right balance. If we've got residents that are concerned about those, then find the majority is being preserved and protected. And I don't see any reason at all why we would not support that. And yeah, and I would suggest that it is enforced fully and frankly. Thank you. Do we have any other points to debate? I propose that we go to a vote. Seconder. Can I take this approval by affirmation? Or that any people wishing to vote again? Okay, I take it by affirmation. Thank you. Agreed. So that that application is approved. Now we come to the compliance report. Mr Chris Braybrook will be presenting to us online. Thank you very much. Can I hear your report please Chris. Good morning chair. Just a short update. This month, currently we have two hundred and two open cases. Throughout both authorities, three hundred and five identical within. South Cambridge year. So far since the first of January, we've had two hundred and thirty nine compliance referrals come into the team. Staffing update, we still have the vacant post of the principal compliance officer. Hopefully, that will be advertised very shortly now. We're working on getting that advertised in the next couple of weeks. And then that wins our adverts out. Hopefully we'll get some interest and someone who's coming join the join the team. We're currently also going through the recruitment process for an apprentice within the compliance team. That application is currently open. We've had a strong interest in that, which is encouraging. And hopefully I should have an update for the next meeting as well on the compliance apprentice. Just an update on the request from Council of Williams regarding older cases with the priority A, B, and C's. We've now asked the compliance team to look at the old cases, which they have had since for the assignment of case priority was bought in. And we've asked them to add the priority ratings to every case, so there will be a B's and C's. Just so that sort of everything's covered. This process, we've requested to be completed by the end of May and then hopefully in the June statistical figures, which you'll be able to show. All of the open cases by priority type. And I believe a request was made for an update. Sorry. Just a test. Well, you're all good to go again. Thanks, Mike. Okay. And I think a request was made just for a quick update on some of the changes under the recent 11 and up and regeneration act. That's recently come into play on the latter part of April. There are some significant changes just for the committee to be aware of around the four and 10 year rules. Just to remind everyone, the four year rule was operational development, the structures of buildings, where if it's in place in place for four or more years, then it was immune from action. The same for the use of a building as a dwelling house. That was another four year rule and where all other breaches were 10 years. They all been brought into line and they all now 10 year breaches for immunity. However, there are some guidance matters that kind of fit in that we need to be aware of whereby if a building substantially completed before the change over date, 25th of April, then that still falls under the four year rule. The same for the uses of buildings as dwelling houses if they were it for use for more formal consecutive years, then they would still be immune so there's a bit of a sort of a switch over and some dates to be aware of. And in the June report, I will add sort of text on the changes, a bit more detail, just so the committee aware of what's happened, and the new, the new changes that are now in place. And please my report. Thank you. Do you have any questions or point to to Mr to Mr Braybrook. Thank you, Catherine Williams. Say thank you for the handling of the request and also for the update that you gave me, which I've not had chance to get back to you on, but thank you for that. I think that might be something that's helpful for a lot of members to see. And whether when diet is allowed, perhaps a workshop, let's say you've mentioned that there's some changes, but a workshop with members and compliance because that might help us to be able to do things in a way that would support the service. So yeah, if that could be thought of, perhaps, and something because there is quite a lot of changes going on. I think that that's that's noted. Do we have any other questions or points from members. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. So Rebecca, can you take us through the appeals any significant ones. Just as you can see, we've only had one to five appeal decisions this month, or in the previous month from the section notified by pens one is an enforcement appeal that was withdrawn. And then the other three of the others were dismissed and one was appeal allowed land to the rear of 51 creams way in Stapleford officers refused. It was a delegated decision on the basis of the property being a backland location being out of character because it was mainly on linear development, the inspector disagreed and didn't agree with the character argument put forward by members. So it overturned and approved the application. I have any questions on any of the others, then please do contact me and I can hopefully answer them. Do I have any further points request or questions. I have a question in relation to the the may not be relevant to this report. The appeal on the development of Cambridge North. And the impact of the section of state's decision in this case on the water. I'm just trying to find his exact weddings, but it's not. But I just wondered whether in general terms without me to go into detail at the stage, this is likely to have significant impact on any large developments we may be considering throughout South Cambridge. We are we have had some draft council advice based on the outcome of that appeal and that decision. We are going back to the barrister today, I believe with some further questions. So, and that obviously is one of the questions that we've got. We're waiting for a bit more extended advice on. So as soon as we have that, then we'll be able to circulate to members. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do I have any further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Rebecca. Now we move on to the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, the 12th of June. Thank you very much indeed.