Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of former restaurant, with redevelopment of former site for the erection of 2x3 bedroom and 1x2 bedroom detached linked dwellings; 1x2 bedroom apartment; associated cycle and car parking provision and landscaping.

 

The Senior Planner corrected a typographical error in paragraph 8.39 of the Officer’s report:

 

The very front of the proposed two-storey mass would be situated approximately 10m 9.5m directly opposite this window.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.           North Cottages were 17 unique properties.

     ii.          The planning portal website was off-line over the weekend of 28 – 29 October 2017. Late documents were added 31 October. This made it hard for objectors to refer to them.

   iii.          Suggested the site plan was inaccurate.

   iv.          Issues from a previous application had not been addressed:

a.    Lack of green space.

b.    Overbearing.

c.    Overlooking and impact on neighbour’s amenities in 1 North Cottage.

d.    No assessment of the impact on neighbour’s window.

    v.          Asked for the application to be deferred until concerns raised had been addressed.

 

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

 

Councillor O’Connell (Trumpington Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          She and residents agreed the site could be developed into residences instead of a restaurant.

     ii.          Raised concerns about the plan as submitted.

a.    Overbearing and loss of light (ref report paragraph 8.21).

                                                    i.     Trumpington Road had mixed housing styles, Long Road was more built up.

                                                  ii.     The Planning Inspector had ruled against on-site development (ref report paragraph 8.50).

b.    Outstanding objections had not been addressed (ref report paragraphs 8.32 – 33).

c.    Fire/emergency access and related land ownership issues that impacted on access.

d.    Asked for a condition stating planning permission would not be granted until the Planning Officer was satisfied that emergency vehicles could access the site.

   iii.          Asked for the application to be deferred until all issues had been resolved.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) 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.

 

Councillor Nethsingha did not take part in the vote as she was not present for the Officer’s introduction to this item.