The Planning Committee unanimously voted to agree that a Certificate of Lawfulness be granted under Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the construction of a concrete base for the siting of a caravan within an existing residential planning unit, erection of two-metre high gates and boundary fence and construction of a permeable gravel parking area.
With seven votes against, none in favour and one abstention the Committee REFUSED the application.
Councillors John Batchelor, Peter Fane, Bill Handley, Pippa Heylings, Judith Rippeth, Deborah Roberts and Heather Williams voted against the application, whilst Councillor Nick Wright abstained.
Members visited the site on 16 August 2018 prior to the meeting.
David Royce (objector) and Philip Kratz (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.
Dr. Jon Finney from the Local Highways Authority said that, from the LHA’s point of view, the most important issue was to assess whether the impact of the proposed development was ‘severe’. A decrease in the number of car parki8ng spaces reduced the number of potential conflict points. In the LHA’s opinion, the proposal’s likely impact fell short of the level at which a transport statement would be deemed necessary. Therefore, it did not consider there to be any significant adverse issues, and had no objection to the proposed development.
Following discussion by Members, and by nine votes to nil (with Councillor Bill Handley abstaining) the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee noted that this application had been removed from the agenda because Comberton Parish Council had withdrawn its objection so that its recommendation no longer conflicts with that of Planning Officers. As such, the application would now be determined in accordance with the Planning Committee's Scheme of Delegation.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
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 that no very special circumstances had been demonstrated for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, and other harm through an adverse impact on views from, and enjoyment of, public bridle path numbers 4 and 8.
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 in accordance with 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 an Informative relating to the routing of construction traffic.
The Committee approved the application, as amended by plans 962/04 Revision A (date stamped 10 January 2011), 962/03 Revision B, 962/05 Revision B, 962/06 Revision B, 962/07 Revision B, 962/08 Revision B (date stamped 18 January 2011), subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and a further Condition relating to the provision of pedestrian visibility splays as required by the Local Highways Authority. Members instructed officers to make sure that Condition 5 in the report took full account of their preference for permeable surfacing.
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reasons: The alterations and extension of the garage would materially alter its size and massing such that it would appear unduly overbearing on the outlook from, and increase the existing level of overshadowing of the surrounding residential properties. As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. The changes to the size and massing of the existing garage and the changes to its roof would give it an incongruous appearance and the appearance of a dwelling when viewed from adjoining properties to the detriment to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/2 which states that all new development must be of high quality design and as appropriate to the scale and nature of the development should preserve or enhance the character of the local area and be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, mass, form, siting and design in relation to the surrounding area; and to Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.
Approved as report subject to the housing mix being varied to seven 2-bed dwellings and four 3-bed dwellings.
Approval as report (not delegated).
Delegated approval subject to no new material objections and with an extra Condition requiring enhancements to the existing house and garage to be completed prior to occupation.
Delegated approval (subject to outstanding consultation responses) contrary to report – Members felt that the applicant’s special circumstances outweighed any harm to the Green Belt.
Refused contrary to report. Members considered the layout to be unacceptable, and that the passageway could encourage anti-social behaviour and would intrude on the privacy of those living in the ground floor flats.
Refused contrary to report. Members deemed the proposed development to be too big on this site and considered it to be detrimental to the contribution the pond makes within the Conservation Area.
Refused contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) for the reason of the adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area of the proposed dwelling being not outweighed by visual improvements to the property at the front of the site.
Delegated approval / delegated refusal, subject to discussions with the applicants on siting and massing in the context of the Conservation Area.
Approval as report
Approval as report
Refused contrary to report for the reasons set out in paragraph 6 of the report
Withdrawn.
Delegated approval contrary to report.
DELEGATED APPROVAL
Refused contrary to report on the grounds of siting and design.
Refused contrary to report. Reason: detrimental impact on the listed building and The Causeway.
Approved
Approved
Delegated approval as per report dated 6th October 2004, and deletion of the additional Condition contained in the report dated 2nd March 2005. Permitted development rights to be removed.
Approval as report.
Deferred
Approval as report
Delegated approval/refusal – local highway authority comments awaited
Delegated approval