Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of 1 no. 3 bed dwelling house (following the demolition of the existing out building)

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Dr David Brown.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Concerned that the Officer recommendation conflicts with previous Council Arboricultural Officer advice.

     ii.          The tree makes an important contribution to the visual amenity of the area and should not be damaged or removed.

   iii.          Removing 30% of the crown of the tree would be detrimental to its health.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Mike Muller.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Speaking as the owner of the tree.

     ii.          Replacing a single storey garage with a 3 storey building was not acceptable.

   iii.          Concerned over possible damage to the tree.

   iv.          Concerned over access issues. 

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Branning.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Speaking as the owner of 96 Sandy Lane.

     ii.          The proposal would have a negative impact in a conservation area.

   iii.          The tree would be put at severe risk.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Julian Harper.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Spoke as a representative of the adjoining site.

     ii.          The tree was significant for the area.

   iii.          Concerned that the Officer recommendation conflicts with previous Council Arboricultural Officer advice.

 

 Mr Justin Bainton addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 2) to reject the officer recommendation to grant the application for planning permission.

 

The committee voted separately on the 2 proposed reasons for refusing planning permission:

 

Contrary to Local Plan policy 4/4 – proposal carried by 8 votes to 1

Contrary to Local Plan Policy 3/4 – proposal lost by 1 vote to 8. 

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to refuse planning permission, against the officer recommendation, for the following reason:

 

The development would be likely to result in significant surgery to the sycamore tree adjacent to the site which would have an adverse effect on a tree that is of amenity value and which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.  The development is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan policy 4/4.