Issue - meetings

The Committee approved both applications contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposal would not harm the special character and appearance of the early 19^th century timber framed and thatched cottage, notwithstanding the increased bulk and massing of the existing extension, would not be detrimental to the listed building and would not detract from the character of the dwelling and the historic plan form.

Tony Hyde (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Clayton Hudson (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 7 September 2011. The Committee approved both applications contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposal would not harm the special character and appearance of the early 19^th century timber framed and thatched cottage, notwithstanding the increased bulk and massing of the existing extension, would not be detrimental to the listed building and would not detract from the character of the dwelling and the historic plan form.

Approval as report. 

The Committee approved the application as amended on 20October 2009, subject to the Condition referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).

Refused, contrary to report, on the grounds of noise nuisance from the A428 and its unacceptable  impact on the quality of the lives of those likely to occupy the dwellings

Prior to considering this item, Members attended a site visit on 5 March 2007.  The Committee REFUSED the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the absence of a noise mitigation scheme to overcome noise nuisance from traffic on the A428 and the unacceptable impact on the quality of the lives of those likely to occupy the dwellings, contrary to Policy ES7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004, and Planning Policy Guidance note 24.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink declared a personal interest as a member of Eltisley Parish Council, who was present when this application had been considered there. She did not contribute to the debate, did not vote there, and was approaching the matter afresh.

Refused as report. 

REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services. 

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink declared a personal interest as an adjacent land owner.  Having sought advice from the Head of Legal Services, she took no part in the debate, and did not vote.

Approved

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and an informative drawing attention to the public drain in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink declared personal interests as an adjacent landowner and member of Eltisley Parish Council, although she had not contributed to the debate when that Parish Council had considered this application.

Refused

REFUSED, contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services, due to the visual impact of the mast and insufficient consideration of other possible sites at Pastures Farm near Caxton and Caxton Road, Eltisley.

Councillor NIC Wright declared a prejudicial interest as the applicant was his brother-in-law, and withdrew from the Chamber.