Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
38 14/1653/FUL - Land to Rear of 551-555 Newmarket Road PDF 104 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for full planning permission.
The proposal sought approval for the erection of three dwellings
to the rear of nos.551 and 555 Newmarket Road. As part of
the proposal, a new private access would be constructed between
nos.553 and 555. The 4-5m access road would lead to an informal shared-surface
private drive to serve the three new dwellings. The access road would be
widened to 5m adjacent
to the Newmarket Road junction, in accordance with County
Highways specifications. The proposal also includes car
parking, cycle and bin storage to serve the new dwellings, and hard
and soft landscaping.
The
Principal Planning Officer updated details in the Officer’s report as follows:
i.
Paragraph 8.12 (p315) should refer to the
north elevation, not the south.
ii.
Condition 17 should be amended to refer
to windows.
iii.
The amendment sheet listed Officer
responses to the points raised by neighbours.
iv.
Since the amendment sheet was published,
the owner of 30a Ditton Walk made a representation that reiterated the
following concerns:
·
Overlooking.
·
Overshadowing.
·
Impact on wildlife.
v.
The Principal Planning Officer’s response
to the owner of 30a Ditton Walk is:
·
There was insufficient
overshadowing/overlooking of 30a Ditton Walk to merit refusal of the application.
·
There should be no significant impact on
wildlife.
vi.
Since publication of the report pack the
owner of 547 Newmarket Road stated that measurements in the drawings were wrong
and that the shadow diagram is inaccurate.
The Principal Planning Officer has
checked the drawing measurements and found no issues. The Applicant had checked
and confirmed the shadow diagram was accurate.
vii.
The Applicant would have to resolve any
queries regarding the accuracy of the boundary.
Mr Barker, Ms Turner, Mr Adams and Mr Howe addressed
the Committee in objection to the application.
The
representations covered the following issues:
i.
Planning policies were designed to
protect residents and avoid a loss of character in the area.
ii.
Raised the following specific concerns
regarding the application:
·
Loss of light.
·
Loss of privacy.
·
Loss of view.
·
Sense of enclosure.
·
Overbearing design.
iii.
Suggested the design did not meet
criteria for Planning Policies 3/9 and 3/10.
The
Committee:
Resolved
(unanimously) to approve the application for full 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 officer. With the addition of the following words after the
list of drawing numbers in Condition 17: ‘and the south-facing panes of the
bathroom at the south end of the first floor of Plot 1.’