By affirmation, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being concerns about scale, massing, design, footprint, visual amenity and flooding.
By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to
1. A Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the tenure and affordability of the housing units; and
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
The Committee deferred this application for administrative reasons.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to:
The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.
The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to commission an up-to-date structural movement survey.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.
The Committee gave officers delegated power 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 appropriate contributions towards off-site transport infrastructure, and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the prior completion of a revised Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 discharging the terms of the existing Section 106 Agreement.
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 the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and the addition of a condition ensuring the ecological mitigation is implemented in accordance with the submitted enhancement scheme.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and an additional Condition requiring upgraded landscaping along Silverdale Avenue.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Planning Consent was no longer subject to the requirements referred to in the report under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The Committee deferred this item for a site visit.
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
1. The enormous intensification of use, which would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours by virtue of noise and light pollution
2. That the special circumstances set out in the application were insufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused, and therefore contravened policies, including Policy GB/1, contained in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007
The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated power to approve the application, subject to reconfiguring the on-site parking area by repositioning the bin store and cycle racks to allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear, the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, an additional Condition requiring reinstatement of landscaping to address the issue of light pollution, and an Informative stating that any future material change of use would necessitate a further planning application.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve or refuse the application depending on the outcome of an independent viability assessment. If approved, the consent would be subject to appropriate safeguarding Conditions.
Upon the Chairman’s casting vote, the Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application as amended, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and to other safeguarding Conditions relating to, among other things, lighting and the erection of a structure that would restrict entry to the car park to vehicles with a height of no more than 1.8 metres.
The Committee approved the application, as amended by plans referenced 2462-04-Rev A and 2462-05-Rev A date stamped 26 January 2010, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement in line with the Heads of Terms contained in paragraph 58 of the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) with an escalator provision to protect the Local Planning Authority’s interests and those of the community should viability of the scheme improve prior to completion of the development, and subject also to the Conditions set out in that report.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, as amended by drawings numbered 10/29/03 B and 10/29/02 B date stamped 29 November 2010, 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: the scale, siting and design of the dwelling would not have any significant detrimental impact on the character of the streetscene
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, to allow officers to address outstanding issues relating to the equipment proposed within the Local Equipped Area for Play, cycle provision, and timetable.
Delegated approval subject to the receipt of amended layout plans showing the existence of an adequate turning circle.
Minded to approve, as report.
Application 1068 refused contrary to officer recommendation on the grounds of size, design, being out of keeping with Pepys Way and planning policies. Application 1125 refused contrary to officer recommendation on the grounds of siting and being out of character with Pepys Way, adverse impact on neighbours’ amenities, and conflict with planning policies, including P1/3 and 5/5 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and DP2 and DP3 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies Document 2007.
Approved as report with Condition 2 re-worded to demonstrate its longterm application.
Delegated approval as report.
Approved as amended by letter date stamped 1 November 2006.
Refused, contrary to report, on the grounds of congestion, overbearing nature, adverse impact on the street scene and the proposal being out of character with the immediate area.
Refused for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and on the additional grounds of harm to the amenity of the neighbours by reason of traffic noise and design.
Refused contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Director of Development Services on the grounds of the development being too cramped and therefore out of character with the street scene, and the inappropriate size and height of the properties, being overbearing to adjoining properties. The flooding implications for the immediate area would be an additional reason for refusal if the submitted Flood Risk Assessment was not acceptable to the Environment Agency and the Council’s Drainage Manager.
DELEGATED APPROVAL
DELEGATED APPROVAL
DECLINED TO COMMENT
Delegated approval as report.
Approval as report
Approval as report, subject to enforcement notices being served in respect of breach of Conditions 9, 14 and 15, and not 9, 13 and 15 as set out in paragraph 15 of the report.
Delegated Approval.
Delegated approval as report
Objection to Prior Notification on grounds of siting because of detriment to amenity of neighbours.
Delegated approval as report plus landscaping Condition
Refusal contrary to report
Refusal as report