By eight votes to three, the Planning Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a commuted sum towards maintenance of the ‘keep clear’ markings on the M11 Junction 10 roundabout; and
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
(Councillors Henry Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Harvey, Hawkins, Heylings, Milnes and Rippeth voted in favore. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Richard Williams voted against.)
By seven votes to two, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to
1. Officers being satisfied that all appropriate public consultation had been carried out. If not so satisfied, then the consultation exercise would be carried out , and the application again presented to Committee for determination.
2. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a commuted sum towards maintenance of the ‘keep clear’ markings on the M11 Junction 10 roundabout.
3. The Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development plus additional wording added to the materials condition in relation to the use of toned down colours and the landscaping condition to secure a hedge along the eastern boundary adjacent to the M11 slip road.
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Roberts and Heather Williams voted for refusal. Councillors Rippeth and Richard Williams were not present and did not vote.
The Planning Committee unanimously approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
The Committee unanimously refused the application for the three reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and for three additional reasons of there being insufficient information to demonstrate that
· the development would be acceptable in highway safety terms
· the development would not cause an increased risk of flooding
· habitats of importance would be protected as a result of the proposed development.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the applicant to put in place a management plan ensuring, in perpetuity, maintenance of the footpath along the eastern boundary of the site; and
2. The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the unsustainable nature of the proposal, and concerns relating to highway safety and adverse impact on the amenity of residents in Greenacres.
The Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing contributions towards open space, community facilities, waste receptacles and monitoring and legal fees, the Conditions set out in paragraphs 38 to 46 in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an Informative relating to the impact on users of the highway during the construction period.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to (i)no objections being raised by the Local Highways Authority to the additional transport assessment information and revised plans, as amended by Health Impact Assessment date stamped 16 October 2012, Transport Assessment Addendum dated 23 October 2012, Addendum to Badger Survey Report dated 1 November 2012, Noise Impact Assessment date stamped 12 November 2012, and Flood Risk Assessment Rev 2 dated 5 October 2012), and drawing numbers D003-003-D14, D003-006-2 and D003-010 date stamped 21 November 2012,(ii) the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to include a lorry routing agreement public art contribution, and provision for a viability base figure ,and (iii) the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and an additional Condition relating to finished floor levels.
The Committee deferred the application for a site visit.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Having viewed the site, Members considered that the benefit of the sign indicating where the hotel was outweighed the possible harm to highway safety due to distraction caused to vehicle drivers on the A505.
The Committee approved both applications as per the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and an extra Condition requiring the removal of Japanese Knotweed.
The Committee approved the application as recommended in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities), subject to the Conditions referred to therein.
The Committee noted its resolution of 9th January 2008 (minute no. 144 refers) to approve the outline planning application and the hazardous substance consent application as amended by letter and plans date stamped 15thJune 2007, and voted to approve each application subject to Conditions and to the prior completion of the Section 106 Agreement, substantially in those terms drafted in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the current report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and in Appendix 4.
Approved as report subject to the Conditions referred to therein.
Approved contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reasons: Economic and tourism benefits outweigh any harm to the listed building and the proposal complies, on balance, with Policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.
Minded to approve both applications as report.
Delegated approval subject to clarification of floor plans and additional Conditions relating to landscaping and fencing.
APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the Conditions referred to therein.
Delegated approval, subject to agreement as to landscaping and fence colour, in line with officers’ amended recommendation
Delegated approval, subject to agreement as to landscaping and fence colour, in line with officers’ amended recommendation
Approval as report
Withdrawn.