By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.
Councillor Pippa Corney declared a disclosable pecuniary interest because she was named on the planning application form as a joint applicant with Ian Corney. Councillor Corney withdrew from the Chamber for the entirety of the consideration of this application, took no part in the debate and did not vote.
Councillor David Bard took the Chair, and, with the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Robert Turner acted as Vice-Chairman for this item.
The case officer referred to a lack of evidence regarding the acceptability of visibility splays or the efectiveness of the ditch network, although the western ditch was not used for drainage. There was an ongoing breach of planning permission.
Ian Leyshon (objector) and Councillor Geoff Twiss (Over Parish Council) addressed the meeting.
Mr. Leyshon objected on the grounds of access, car parking, the breach of conditions, and connection to the ditch. He said that the proposal was out of character with the village. There followed a short discussion relating the current application to the allowed Appeal. Councillor Twiss said that the Parish Council also had concerns about the non-compliance with conditions.
Following a short debate, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that the application failed to comply with Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework – Development Control Policies 2007 in that the proposal failed to preserve or enhance the character of the surrounding area.
The Committee approved the application subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the matters referred to the Heads of Terms attached at Appendix 1 to the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development; and
2. The Conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the said report.
Had the Committee still had powers formally to determine the application, it would have refused it unanimously for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
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 Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions anf Informative set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that the close boarded fence would have an adverse visual impact on the amenity of the area.
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 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision of community facilities, public open space and household waste receptacles, and to the Conditions 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 reasons for refusal as being:
1. That the application site was outside the village framework
2. The negative impact on the countryside
3. The negative impact on neighbours’ amenities by virtue of their reduced enjoyment of their gardens and the countryside
4. Flooding
5. Unsustainable development
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out 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.
The Committee deferred the application for a site visit.
The Committee deferred the application 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 the cumulative scale of Gypsy and Traveller development in, and adverse impact on, the village of Willingham, and the loss of touring caravan facilities should the proposal proceed.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application, as amended by plans 16WRD1-PP-03C, 16WRD1-PP-05C and 16WRD1-PP-07, subject to any further comments received on the amended plans, and the Conditions and Informative 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.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Planning Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the applicationsubject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement relating to public open space contributions, community facilities and refuse infrastructure provision, and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the receipt of any outstanding consultation responses and 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).
The Committee approved the application 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 dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the area or setting of the adjacent Listed Building. Safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the consent, including a Condition that no openings be allowed above ground floor level in the elevation of the proposed dwelling facing towards no. 16 Fen End.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to consultation responses and Conditions relating to implementation timescales, agreed plans, materials, landscaping, boundary treatment, ecological mitigation, and highway concerns. A Section 106 Legal Agreement would be required to secure public open space.
The Committee approved the application for a temporary period of five years, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and to the structure being removed after that time.
Following confirmation from the Local Highways Authority that the required visibility splay of 2.4 metres x 70 metres in both directions could adequately be achieved, the Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
Approval as report.
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reasons:
The Committee approved the application, as amended by e-mail dated 1 February 2010, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).
Deferred for a site visit.
The Committee approved the application as set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities), subject to the Conditions therein and extra Conditions relating to the design of windows, and retention of the mature tree at the front of the property.
Deferred for a site visit.
The Committee approved the application as recommended in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).
Refused contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reason: with reference to paragraph 5 of the report, the proposal amounted to inappropriate development, was unsuitable for agricultural purposes and would have an adverse impact on neighbours’ amenity.
The Committee resolved that an Enforcement Notice be served with a three-month compliance period if the container was not removed voluntarily.
Approval of both applications as report.
Approved as report
Refused for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Resolved to monitor the site for three months and to take enforcement action thereafter if a breach of condition 2 continues.
Agreed as report
Delegated approval as report
Approved as report.
Delegated approval subject to consultation with local Members and with the developer.
Both applications refused, contrary to report
Delegated approval / refusal. The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to parking arrangements being improved so as to have less of an impact on the occupiers of nearby flats, and to the Conditions referred to in the report. It would be refused if parking arrangements could not be improved.
Approved as report.
APPROVAL
REFFUSED
APPROVAL
WITHDRAWN
Approval as report.
Approval contrary to report. Reason: single dwelling is sensitive to character of the village and locality and satisfies the requirements of Policy SE3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.
Approval as report
Refused