Issue - meetings

Two storey side extension

Councillor Pippa Heylings proposed a Condition requiring retention and maintenance of the hedge along the northern boundary of the proposal site. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam and, by affirmation, agreed by the Committee with the final wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Brian Milnes proposed that Permitted Development Rights Class A (enlargement or improvement of, or alterations to, a house) and Class E (the provision of buildings and other development within the curtilage of a house) be withdrawn. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts and, upon a vote being conducted by role call, was lost by eight votes to three. Councillors Milnes, Roberts and Heather Williams voted to withdraw Permitted Development Rights. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth and Wright voted against the proposal.

Upon a vote being conducted by roll call, and by ten votes to one, the Committee approved the application subject to

1.     The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development; and

2.     An additional Condition requiring retention and maintenance of the hedge along the northern boundary of the proposal site, with the final wording being agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee

Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth. Heather Williams and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillor Roberts voted against.

Members had visited the site on 11 February2020.

Mark Tavaré (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Tom Bygott (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee debate focussed on the following topics

·       Development within the Green Belt

·       Landscaping

·       The removal of Permitted Development Rights

·       The potential for the applicant to implement Permitted Development Rights and planning permission at the same time

Councillor Pippa Heylings proposed additional conditions requiring landscaping and retention and maintenance of the hedge along the northern boundary of the proposal site. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam and, by affirmation, agreed by the Committee with the final wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Brian Milnes proposed that Permitted Development Rights Class A (enlargement or improvement of, or alterations to, a house) and Class E (the provision of buildings and other development within the curtilage of a house) be withdrawn. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts and, upon a vote being conducted by role call, was lost by eight votes to three. Councillors Milnes, Roberts and Heather Williams voted to withdraw Permitted Development Rights. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth and Wright voted against the proposal.

Upon a vote being conducted by roll call, and by ten votes to one, the Committee approved the application subject to

1.    The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development; and

2.    Additional conditions requiring landscaping and retention and maintenance of the hedge along the northern boundary of the proposal site, with the final wording being agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth. Heather Williams and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillor Roberts voted against.

Two storey side extension

Councillor Tom Bygott, a local Member for Madingley spoke against the application. The Chairman then invited  the Senior Planning Lawyer to advise and having heard his comments  the Chairman proposed that this application be deferred so as not to prejudice the applicant, whose agent had withdrawn his request to address the Committee prior to Councillor Bygott being granted exceptional permission to communicate his objections to the application. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, by affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

Members noted that a Member site visit had taken place some time ago. Subsequently, officers confirmed that this had been on 11 February 2020.

The applicant’s agent had registered as a public speaker but had cancelled that registration the day before the meeting because no community objector or other speaker had registered by the deadline of 4,00pm on 15 May 2020. However, shortly before the meeting started, Councillor Tom Bygott, a local Member for Madingley, asked that he be allowed to address Committee members and, on the strict understanding that this very late application to speak should not be seen as setting a precedent, the Chairman agreed. Councillor Bygott spoke against the application. The Chairman then invited  the Senior Planning Lawyer to advise and, having heard his comments,  the Chairman proposed that this application be deferred so as not to prejudice the applicant. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, by affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

First floor side extension

Members noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Two storey dwelling, associated works and access

The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Councillors attended a site visit on 2 February 2016.

Robert Stevens (objector) and William Nichols (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting. Mr. Stevens outlined the history of the site, and said the original intention had been to limit its use, if bought by one of the neighbours, to use as garden land. He argued that the building now proposed was not in keeping with the street scene, and did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. Mr. Nichols said that the presumption in favour of development should apply here in order to help address the shortfall in housing in South Cambridgeshire.

Following Member debate, the Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.