By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and the Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
By six votes to four, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed that the application conflicted with Policies S/7 (Development Frameworks) and H/17 (Reuse of Buildings in the Countryside for Residential Use) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 specifically with regard to the enlarged curtilage, height, bulk, form and visual harm.
By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
By six votes to four, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
(Councillors Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, Hawkins, Rippeth and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Henry Batchelor, Heylings, Roberts and Heather Williams voted to refuse it. Councillor Richard Williams was not present and did not vote.)
By affirmation, Committee deferred the application to give the applicant an opportunity to submit a new ownership certificate. New consultation would then take place, following which the application would be presented to Committee for determination.
Since the committee report had been written, letters had been received from solicitors acting on behalf of Fowlmere Parish Council in respect of the ‘fallback’ position namely, the previously agreed Class Q for two dwellings. Members had considered that issue to be crucial in approving the application on 11 November 2020.
In reply to these letters, the applicant’s solicitor had submitted responses that were completely contrary to the views expressed by the Parish Council’s legal advisor.
The detailed legal arguments in this correspondence require further consideration by officers so that Members can make a robust, informed decision.
By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application to enable officers to provide Members with a report that takes into account all of the new points made.
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fame, Hawkins, Rippeth, Richard Williams and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Roberts amd Heather Williams voted to refuse.)
Upon a vote being conducted by roll call and by seven votes to three, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed that the proposal, by virtue of its mass, scale and overbearing nature, and in conjunction with an existing extension to the garage, would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property known as Oakleigh House. The proposal therefore conflicted with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2019. Final wording of the Decision Notice would be drafted by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.
Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn and Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Bradnam, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted to refuse. Councillor Ellington had left the meeting and did not vote.
The Committee deferred this application for administrative reasons.
Members noted that the applicant had appealed against the non-determination of this application and that, therefore, South Cambridgeshire District Council was no longer the determining Authority. The Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the officers’ proposed positions at Appeal in respect of Areas A and D, as set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
By ten votes to nil, the Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.
Councillors John Batchelor, Dr. Cahn, Fane, Handley, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth, Topping, Heather Williams and Wright voted to refuse the application. Councillor Deborah Roberts took no part in the debate, and did not vote.
Members visited the site on 6 March 2018.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative 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 Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being a conflict with Policies DP/2 (Design of new development) and DP/3 (Development Criteria, particularly paragraph 2(j) concerning unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an extra Condition requiring a contaminated land survey.
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 over development of the site, the detrimental impact on the surrounding area by virtue of intensification, and the absence of a dedicated car parking area. The Committee further resolved that an Enforcement Notice be issued and served, with a compliance period of six months, in respect of the material change of use.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act securing financial contributions towards public open space, community facilities, waste receptacles and monitoring and legal fees, to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and an additional Condition removing Permitted Development Rights. . Members gave delegated authority to officers to seeks a modified scheme altering the layout of the dwelling on the site, and a condition requiring the provision of an acoustic fence.
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 Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the change in tenure mix referred to 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 reason for refusal as being adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nos. 82, 84 and 86 Chapel Lane by virtue of the proposal’s bulk and location within the site.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the significant adverse impact on the financial viability of existing similar businesses in the locality and because it would result in an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to Policy SF/5 of the Local Development Framework 2007.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the adverse impact on neighbour amenity, especially with regard to the occupiers of the Poplars.
Upon the Chairman’s casting vote, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) (Condition 10 being adjusted to reflect the finished floor levels recommended by the Environment Agency).
The Committee approved the application, subject to Conditions relating to the time period for implementation, the approved plan numbers, materials for the exterior of the dwellings, landscaping and landscaping implementation, a scheme securing the affordable housing in perpetuity, archaeological investigation, land contamination investigation, obscure glazing of bathroom windows to the front elevation of plots 3 and 4 and the landing window to plot 3, removal of permitted development rights to the front elevation of plots 3-6 and the side elevations of plot 3 and 7, the retention of parking spaces for the future, the provision of appropriate vehicle-to-vehicle visibility splays, the removal of permitted development rights to allow further pedestrian or vehicle access from Thriplow Road, details of drainage from the access, materials to be used for the access, provision of a footpath along Cambridge Road, a scheme to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination to the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, a scheme of nesting boxes (including boxes for Barn Owls), foundation details for the access and an Arboricultural Implication Assessment to ensure retention of the existing tree at 4 Cambridge Road, provision of public open space, times of use of power operated machinery during construction, and details of the bin collection area screen.
Refused contrary to recommendation. Reason: Adverse impact on residential properties dues to noise, and contrary to policies DP/3, ET/5 and NE/15 of the Local Development Framework.
Approved as report.
Delegated Approval for a temporary period of one year, as report, with additional Conditions restricting use of the access onto High Street to that of a fire door, restricting deliveries and collections to within the permitted hours of the Takeaway service, and reflecting the views of the Chief Environmental Health Officer.
Delegated Aprroval / Refusal subject to the nature of outstanding consultation replies and to the securing of affordable housing.
Approved as report.
Approved as report.
Delegated approval of both applications as report, subject to appropriate noise attenuation measures.
Approval as report with Condition 3 requiring window additionally to be non-opening
Approval as report dated 3rd November 2004.
Approval as report.
Refused contrary to the report
Deferred for a site visit.
Refusal contrary to report
Delegated approval as report
Approval