Members visited the site on 11 February 2020.
The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development had endorsed referral of this application to the Committee because of its significance in relation to the delegation policy.
Councillor Mark Brogan (Thriplow Parish Council) addressed the meeting.
Members engaged in a short debate exploring the possibility of installing shielding around the floodlights as a way of minimising the impact on neighbouring residdnts.
By six votes to two, with one abstention, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
(Councillors Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Rippeth voted to approve the application. Councillor Heather Williams and Wright voted to refuse. Councillor Roberts abstained and Councillor John Batchelor was not present.)
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the absence of any special circumstances such as to overcome the inappropriateness of development in the Green Belt
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:
· An unsustainable form of development given scale of proposal, limited range of services and facilities in Thriplow, lack of alternative travel modes and overreliance on car travel.
· The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the village, encroaching into countryside and affecting setting of the green belt.
Deferred to allow officers an opportunity to seek Counsel’s Advice.
Deferred to allow officers an opportunity to seek Counsel’s Advice.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee deferred the application.
The Committee noted that that this application had been withdrawn completely and that any new application would need to be submitted and consulted upon before being considered at a future planning committee meeting.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that the form, design and scale of the proposed dwellings in such a significant location would have a negative impact on the Heathfield estate as a whole.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to the provision of public open space, community infrastructure, and refuse facilities, and a financial contribution towards Section 106 monitoring.
The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Members considered that the proposal would not lead to any significant loss of privacy for neighbouring properties. The Decision Notice would refer to relevant policies within the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and contain appropriate safeguarding Conditions.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in thee report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and an additional Condition relating to the number of refuse bins to be allowed and the means of their storage.
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Members expressed concern at the cramped nature of the proposal due to the bulk of the dwellings, the resultant loss of an important green open space and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, potential noise from the A505.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).
Approved as report
Approval of both applications with an extra Condition removing Permitted Development Rights for walls / fences along the northern boundary.
APPROVAL, as amended by Section Drawing date stamped 29 June 2006, for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and to an additional Condition requiring the first floor bedroom rooflight in the southern elevation of the main part of the dwelling facing no.24 Middle Street to be a minimum of 1.7 metres above the first floor finished floor level to ensure that there would be no serious overlooking of no.24.
Delegated approval / refusal, depending on whether or not agreement can be reached on the developer contributing financially to the provision of affordable housing off site in accordance with Policy HG/4 of the LDF Submission Draft.
REFUSED
DEFERRED
Approval as report of 2nd November 2005.
Deferred
Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions therein and additional Conditions requiring protection of the Second World War pill box, and a noise attenuation scheme, if not already covered by the outline planning permission.
South Cambridgeshire District Council to respond to consultation by Cambridgeshire County Council, objecting to the proposal, specifically in relation to the lack of full public consultation, the inappropriate location, inaccuracies in the report and extent of the proposal.
Delegated Refusal.
Approval
Approval