Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: North Area Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
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.
Report author: Lauren Wilby
Publication date: 01/11/2013
Date of decision: 03/10/2013
Decided at meeting: 03/10/2013 - North Area Committee
Accompanying Documents: