Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application on behalf of local residents.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Queried why the existing dwelling would be demolished and replaced. Suggested this proposal was not included in the original iteration or ex ante permission. Queried why the City Council had contacted the Applicant to include demolition of the existing property in their proposal.

     ii.          Suggested the application did not comply with planning policy (eg character of the area) as referenced in the Officer’s report in paragraphs 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15.

   iii.          Suggested that ex ante permission was given undue weight in the Officer’s recommendation.

   iv.          Re-iterated that the 2015 decision gave planning permission, not permission for demolition of the original building.

Mr Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Avery (Trumpington Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          He wanted the integrity of the Conservation Area protected.

     ii.          Suggested that on its own, the application would not be approved, but the Officer had recommended approval on the strength of the ex ante permission. The permission was given before Conservation Area status was given to the location. The existing (ex ante) permission would not be granted now the location had Conservation Area status and  there was no reason why it should be the overriding factor now.

   iii.          Referred to the summary in the Officer’s report setting out planning considerations.

   iv.          Suggested that demolition of the existing property was not included in the original proposal.

    v.          Queried if the ex ante permission was still relevant.

   vi.          Suggested the site was being developed, not adapted as a family home.

 vii.          Referred to Queen’s Counsel comments included in residents’ representations stating that councillors needed to exercise discretion when considering ex ante permission, to be mindful of all issues, and not treat it as a definitive rule to follow.

viii.          Referred to paragraph 10 in the Officer’s report stating the application could (but may not) be called in by the National Planning Casework Unit for Secretary of State determination if approval were granted by Planning Committee.

   ix.          The replacement building did not have sufficient merit to be implemented.

The Principal Planner (TW) clarified that the change in planning regulations regarding demolition meant that the previous description of development for the scheme needed to be changed during its consideration to reflect that permission also needed to include specific reference to demolition. Officers had contacted the Agent to get the planning description altered to reflect the change in legislation. As such, the existing permission included demolition of the existing building.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and subject to the National Planning Casework Unit determining whether the application should be called in for determination by the Secretary of State.

Councillor Smart participated in the meeting discussion but not the vote as he was not present for the Officer’s introduction.