Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a new dwelling on the land adjacent to 55 Alpha Road.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

The local resident suggested that Councillor Hipkin had fettered his discretion during a site visit in February 2017 by suggesting there should be a house on the site. Councillor Hipkin stated this was not the case, but for the avoidance of doubt withdrew from the meeting for this item and Councillor Smart took the Chair.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There was some confusion in the report about application details eg building height.

     ii.          Suggested the wrong plans had been included in the drawing pack.

   iii.          There should be no house on the plot as it would take over amenity space.

   iv.          Referred to para 8.3 of the Officer’s report and when planning conditions should apply.

    v.          Said the plot was divided from No. 55 pre-2002.

Councillor Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Specific concerns:

a.    Took issue with Conservation Officer support for the application (para 8.6). Particularly having a separate dwelling on-site.

b.    The site was in a prominent location in the conservation area.

c.    Large footprint of the application.

d.    Loss of garden land, bio diversity and amenity space.

     ii.          Asked for clarification of NPPF Policy 3 (garden development) and the impact on this garden development.

   iii.          There were historic conditions not to split the site from No. 61 as this application proposed to do.

   iv.          Asked for the application to be deferred until all queries regarding plot ownership were clarified.

The Senior Planner said that if the land was used in the same way for 10 years then it could legally be considered as a separate site.

The City Development Manager recommended to Committee that Cambridge Local Plan (2006) Policy 3/10 was not relevant and that references to 3/10 in paragraphs 8.7, 8.18 and 8.22 should be ignored.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.