The Committee Manager took the Chair whilst the South Area Committee elected a Chair.

 

Councillor Ashton proposed, and Councillor McPherson seconded, the nomination of Councillor Birtles as Chair.

 

Councillor Avery proposed, and Councillor Pippas seconded, the nomination of Councillor Blackhurst as Chair.

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 4) that Councillor Birtles be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Councillor Birtles assumed the Chair from the Committee Manager at this point.

 

Councillor Moore proposed, and Councillor Birtles seconded a vote of thanks to Councillor Ashton as the outgoing Chair.

 

Councillor Dryden proposed, and Councillor McPherson seconded, the nomination of Councillor Meftah as Vice Chair

 

Councillor Avery proposed, and Councillor Pippas seconded, the nomination of Councillor Blackhurst as Vice Chair.

  

Resolved (by 5 votes to 4) that Councillor Meftah be Vice Chair for the ensuing year.

Apologies were received from Councillor Crawford.

Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Head of Legal should be sought before the meeting.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Avery	14/38/SAC & 14/39/SAC	Personal: Lives in Aberdeen Avenue, where a number of projects are proposed.
Councillors Dryden & McPherson	14/40/SAC	Personal: Member of the Royal British Legion.
Councillor Dryden	14/42/SACe	Personal: His Mother lives in the same road as the application.
Councillor Pippas	14/43/SACa	Personal and prejudicial: The property at number 33 is adjacent to his property at 1 Mowbray Road.   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2014.

The minutes of the 23 April 2014 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment to question 4 in 14/26/SAC:

 

Councillor Taylor said that county council officers would attend Cambridge Regional College in future to speak to students.

 

Councillor Taylor told the meeting that County Councillors would be visiting Cambridge Regional College to take part in a ‘Question Time’ style debate.

14/26/SAC Open Forum “Action Point: Councillor Ashton to write to Netherhall School to ask how South Area Committee and the community can support the school to improve following a recent inspection.”

 

Councillor Ashton has written to Netherhall School to ask how South Area Committee and the community can support the school to improve following a recent inspection.

 

ACTION POINT: Councillor Birtles to follow this up as no response has been received from Netherhall School.

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking.

1.    Mr Woodburn raised the following issues:

·       Asked for speed limits to be enforced and suggested this could be a police priority for the south area. Mr Woodburn raised concerns that people were speeding in the city and that speed cameras may not be operating in some areas. He asked the Police to do speed checks Friday and Saturday nights to catch motorists who had been drinking.

·       Pedestrian and cycle access to the busway from the Kaleidoscope development has still not been provided as required by the Kaleidoscope planning application. Mr Woodburn queried when this would be provided. He asked that all future planning applications have pedestrian and cycle access routes in place before first occupancy, just as car routes have to be.

·       There was still no access from Hills Road bridge. Access from Long Road and Shelford Road involves a long diversion. Good, direct access is urgently needed in all three cases.

 

Councillor Blackhurst said that the County Council had invited Councillors to a County Council s106 workshop on Thursday 26 June 2014. Mr Woodburn’s concerns would be raised there.

 

2.    Mr Bower raised concerns regarding the traffic calming scheme in Cherry Hinton High Street.

 

Councillor Ashton said the County Council had advised South Area Committee (SAC) that details should have been available in January 2014, after consultation with residents in September 2013. Delays then occurred due to a lack of county staff, and other projects being prioritised first due to funding time constraints. A further update is proposed for September 2014.

 

ACTION POINT: Councillor Ashton to query the progress of the Cherry Hinton High Street traffic calming scheme with County Council Officers. Response to be fedback to South Area Committee and member of public who raised the query.

 

3.    Mr Watson spoke in favour of the Environmental Improvement Programme project for Norwich Street.

The Committee received a report from the Safer Communities Section Manager and Inspector Poppitt regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 3 March 2014. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were:

·       Combat the supply of drugs in South area.

·       Target the increase in dwelling burglary in the Cherry Hinton area.

·       Target the increase in thefts from motor vehicles in the Trumpington area.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

       i.          Anti-social behaviour around the “Cambridge Lakes”. The Police could go on site in specific circumstances, but were tackling issues through other means, such as ticketing owners who parked inappropriately around the “Lakes” area.

     ii.          Drug use around in the “Cambridge Lakes” and Cherry Hinton areas.

   iii.          Bicycle crime in the Queen Edith’s area.

   iv.          Dwelling burglary in Queen Edith’s, Cherry Hinton and Trumpington wards.

 

SAC thanked Sergeant Jim Stevenson for his work to date, and looked forward to working with his successor.

 

Councillor Ashton expressed thanks on behalf of Cherry Hinton residents to PCSO Marie Bailey for her work.

 

In response to SAC Members’ questions the Police Inspector said the following:

       i.          Information from members of the public helped the police carry out investigations. The Police would verify information received then use it to target actions against areas and individuals. Generic information was published in e-cops, specific information was given to individuals who reported details.

     ii.          All speed cameras were assumed to be working. The Police were not responsible for their maintenance.

   iii.          CB1 was a bicycle crime hotspot. Visible patrols and covert investigations were used to tackle this. Information was also signposted through bike shops, such as the Immobilise website.

   iv.          The growth of the southern fringe led to a corresponding increase in crime, affecting contractors as well as residents. The Police would monitor this even if it were not a specific SAC priority.

 

Councillor Moore withdrew due to illness.

 

Councillor Taylor requested a change to the recommendations to include bicycle theft. SAC felt this was an on-going issue that was already being targeted by the Police.

 

The following priorities were agreed by 10 votes to 1:

       i.          Combat the supply of drugs in the south area.

     ii.          Target dwelling burglary in Queen Edith’s, Cherry Hinton and Trumpington wards.

   iii.          Target anti-social behaviour associated with the “Cambridge Lakes” area.

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

The report provided an update on:

·       The delivery of the Area Committee’s first round local priority projects;

·       Steps being taken to implement the SAC’s second round local priorities (in particular, background information on delays to the delivery of the Accordia junior scooter facility project);

·       Opportunities to allocate some further funding to enable a couple of local environmental improvement schemes to move forward, ahead of a third priority-setting round in late 2014/early 2015.

 

Mrs Hilary Lowson, Joint Secretary of Accordia Community and Residents’ Association (ACRA), spoke in favour of the junior scooter park project. She said that children needed somewhere safe to play. Residents would be able to give their views on such issues as the proposed materials and siting through the consultation.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          ACRA/Accordia residents had lobbied SAC for the junior scooter in the run-up to the second round priority-setting last January. Some residents had raised concerns more recently, and it was hoped that these could be addressed through the consultation process.

     ii.          The Cherry Hinton Baptist Church Family Centre’s on-going search for more funding for an expanded improvement scheme was set in the context of the impending closure/redevelopment of other community facilities at the local British Legion Hall.

 

In response to Members’ comments the Urban Growth Project Manager said the following:

       i.          SAC had identified the Accordia junior scooter park and trim trail project as a local priority (subject to local consultation and project appraisal) last January. Beyond the feedback received as part of initial consultation on first and second round broad project ideas, further consultation would be undertaken so that residents could have their input on specific design proposals for the junior scooter facility. Depending on the comments received as part of that further consultation, a project appraisal would be reported either to the SAC Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes or, if there is not a broad consensus on the proposals, to a future SAC meeting.

     ii.          Depending on the level of funding needed by Cherry Hinton Baptist Church for its expanded family centre refurbishment plans, a project appraisal would be reported either to the SAC Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes or, if the overall S106 funding request is more than £75,000, to a future SAC meeting.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (by 8 votes to 0):

       i.          Noted the updates on local priority projects from the first two rounds of devolved decision-making, especially the consultation arrangements & revised timescales for the Accordia scooter project.

     ii.          Allocated £17,500 of devolved informal open space S106 contributions to support the delivery of environmental improvements at Trumpington War Memorial and Cherry Hinton War Memorial.

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery & Environment Manager regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report requested the Committee to determine which of the proposed new EIP schemes were allocated funding as part of the 2014/15 Environmental Improvement Programme.

 

Members considered a number of 2014/15 schemes put forward for approval.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Project Delivery & Environment Manager answered:

       i.          The maintenance of 26 hanging baskets along Cherry Hinton High Street was brought to SAC on an annual basis at its request, although this was not the norm for EIP projects.

     ii.          A report would go to Community Services in future setting out proposed changes to the EIP process. 2014/15 may be the last year of the current process.

 

A member of the public spoke in favour of ‘S6’ to install a dropped kerb on Red Cross Lane at gate leading to Addenbrooke’s Hospital. This would give better access to people with mobility impairments.

 

SAC wished to allocate EIP funding fairly between the 3 south area wards, so an equal 3-way split was proposed. Councillor Meftah formally requested a change to recommendation 2.2 as follows:

 

Delete:

 

To allocate the remaining £37,300 to the list of proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

Replace with:

 

To allocate the remaining £37,300 equally between Queen Edith’s, Cherry Hinton and Trumpington wards, to be allocated to the list of proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report in future.

 

The revised recommendation was agreed (by 8 votes to 0).

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (by 8 votes to 0):

       i.          Allocated funding of £4,500 for the annual provision and maintenance of 26 hanging baskets along Cherry Hinton High St.

     ii.          Allocated the remaining £37,300 equally between Queen Edith’s, Cherry Hinton and Trumpington wards, to be allocated to the list of proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report in future.

   iii.          Approved the delivery of the minor traffic regulation orders listed in Appendix E of the Officer’s report, at an estimated cost of £6000, funded by the remainder of the South Area Committee 2011/12 joint minor highway works budget.

   iv.          Approved those projects for implementation, subject to positive consultation where required and final approval by Ward Councillors.

    v.          Noted the progress of existing schemes listed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the late item from the Project Delivery & Environment Manager be considered despite not being made publicly available for this committee five clear days prior to the meeting.

 

The reason that this document could not be deferred was that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the next committee.  

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Residents supported the proposals.

     ii.          The memorials recognised where people had made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

Cherry Hinton War Memorial

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery & Environment Manager regarding Cherry Hinton War Memorial.

 

The report outlined a request to undertake works to improve the condition and nature of the surfaces surrounding Cherry Hinton War Memorial, located at the entrance to Cherry Hinton recreation ground, including both soft and hard landscaping.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (8 votes to 0):

 

       i.          Financial recommendation:

Recommended the use of proposed funding allocations outlined in the project appraisal for this scheme which is included in the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme PRO 10B. Subject to:

·       The total cost of the project is £ 13,500 funded from Environmental Improvement Programme, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council and informal open space developer contributions.

·       The on-going revenue costs of the project are to be funded by both Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County Councils.

     ii.          Procurement recommendation:

Approved the formal contractual appointment, delivery and completion of the project. Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract value.

·       The permission from the Committee Chair being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Trumpington War Memorial

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery & Environment Manager regarding Trumpington War Memorial.

 

The report outlined a proposal to undertake works to improve the condition and nature of the surfaces surrounding Trumpington War Memorial, a grade ii* listed structure, including both soft and hard landscaping.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (8 votes to 0):

       i.          Financial recommendations:

Approved the delivery and completion of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme PRO 10B and section 106 programme.

·       The total cost of the project is £ 30,000 funded from Environmental Improvement Programme, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council drainage revenue fund and informal open space developer contributions.

·       The on-going revenue costs of the project are to be funded by both Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County Councils.

     ii.          Procurement recommendations:

Approved formal contractual appointment, delivery and completion of the project. Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract value.

·       The permission from the Committee Chair being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Lieutenant Jack Creek

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery & Environment Manager regarding Trumpington War Memorial.

 

The report outlined Cambridge City Council was contacted in the autumn of 2013 by the family of Lieutenant Jack Neville Creek of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, regarding the possible addition of his name to the Trumpington War Memorial. Lt Jack Creek was killed in action during World War II.

 

Officers have liaised with a variety of technical conservation specialists, local residents and Trumpington Ward Councillor Andy Blackhurst, to agree an appropriate route by which to reach a decision.

 

Officers have liaised with the family to obtain information as to the circumstances of Lt Jack Creek that might lead to the addition of the name to the memorial.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (8 votes to 0):

      i.          Financial recommendations:

Recommended this scheme (which is not included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan) for approval by Council, subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs.

·       The total cost of the project is £1,500, funded from External grant.

·       There are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project.

    ii.          Procurement recommendations:

Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement of a suitably qualified engraver to fulfil the terms of the grant. Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

·       The permission from the South Area Committee Chair being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

The Committee received an update report following the outcome of an Appeal decision against the Council’s decision to refuse to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (application reference 12/1438/CLUED).

 

Site: 27 Babraham Road, Cambridge

Breach: Breach of planning conditions and material change of use.

 

The report sought authority as listed against each of the five Enforcement Notices authorised by Committee in March 2013:

 

1.  Breach of condition 1of C/97/0695 (The number of ice cream vans stored at the premises shall not exceed two vehicle).

Enforcement notice not to be issued.

 

2.  Breach of condition 2 of C/97/0695 (The ice cream vans, when not in use, shall be stored within the existing garages at all times with the doors closed).

Enforcement notice to be served but amended to remove reference to ‘with the doors closed’.

 

3.  Breach of condition 3 of C/97/0695 (There shall be no deliveries to the premises associated with the ice cream business)

 

Enforcement notice not to be issued.

 

4.  Breach of condition 4 of C/97/0695 (The garage shall be used for the parking of no more than two ice cream vans and the parking of domestic vehicles only and for no other purpose without express consent to be given in writing by the local planning authority).

Enforcement notice not to be issued.

 

5.  The material change of use of the area of the Land marked with green hatching on the attached plan of 27 Babraham Road Cambridge to a B1 business use.

Enforcement notice not to be issued.

 

Public speakers addressed the Committee regarding agenda items 10a & b in one block (minute items 14/41/SACa and 14/41/SACb).

 

The Committee received representations supporting enforcement action from the following:

·       Mr Cinque.

·       Mr Beaumont (statement read out on his behalf by Committee Manager).

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Photos taken by Mr Cinque showing the area around 27 Babraham Road were circulated to SAC Councillors with the approval of the Committee and Head of Planning Services.

     ii.          Mr Cinque and Mr Beaumont asked for enforcement action to be taken.

   iii.          Neighbours wanted peace and amenity space.

   iv.          Raised the following specific concerns:

·       Delivery lorries blocked the highway. Complaints were made to the Police, Highways Agency and Environmental Health Officers.

·       Frequency of deliveries.

·       Noise from site and deliveries.

·       Safety due to deliveries and intimidation of neighbours.

·       Lack of communication with the owner of 27 Babraham Road.

·       Overdevelopment/inappropriate use of site.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation that enforcement notice not to be issued for breach of conditions 1,3, 4 and 5; enforcement notice to be served but amended to remove reference to ‘with the doors closed’ for breach of condition 2.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

 

Site: 27 Babraham Road, Cambridge.

Breach: Unauthorised storage of a hot potato cart and use of a car port garage extension for the storage of ice cream vans.

 

The report sought authority to:

 

       i.          Authorise the Head of Planning and the Head of Legal Services to prepare and serve an enforcement notice under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of a breach of planning control, namely the material change of use of the car port garage approved under planning reference C/01/0558/FP at 27 Babraham Road to business use for storage of ice cream vans specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3, for the reasons contained in paragraph 7.4.

     ii.          To delegate authority to the Head of Planning (after consultation with the Head of Legal Services) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of non-compliance with the enforcement notices.

 

Enforcement Notice – Use of the car port garage extension for storage of ice cream vans

 

7.2 Steps to comply

 

Cease the use of the car port garage extension for storage of ice cream vans.

 

7.3 Period for compliance

 

28 days after the date on which the Enforcement Notice takes effect.

 

7.4 Statement of Reasons for inclusion on the Notice:

 

It appears to the Council that the breach of planning control namely the material change of use of the car port garage approved under planning reference C/01/0558/FP at 27 Babraham Road to business use for storage of ice cream vans, has occurred within the last 10 years.

 

The change of use of the car port garage extension for the storage of ice cream vans has given rise to additional noise and disturbance to neighbours over and above that associated with the storage of ice cream vans within the garage permitted under planning reference C/97/0695/FP and an expansion of the extent of the business activities on the site resulting in an unacceptably adverse impact on their amenities.

 

The material change of use of the car port garage approved under planning reference C/01/0558/FP at 27 Babraham Road to business use for storage of ice cream vans has been undertaken without the benefit of planning permission and is contrary to policy 4/13 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and to government guidance in Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Mindful of the NPPF, Development Plan policy and other material considerations, the Council consider it expedient to serve an enforcement notice in order to remedy the breach of planning control.

 

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 2000 and the Equalities Act 2010. Officers have noted Article 1 Protocol 1 (protection of property), Article 6 (a right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Officers consider that the service of an enforcement notice with a reasonable period for compliance would be lawful, fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and necessary in the general public interest to achieve the objective of upholding national and local planning policies, which seek to protect which seek to protect residential amenity.

 

Public speakers addressed the Committee regarding agenda items 10a & b in one block, these are listed under minute item 14/41/SACa.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation that enforcement action be authorised in respect of the unauthorised change of use of a car port garage extension for the storage of ice cream vans.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of a new dwelling.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Various concerns regarding the application had now been resolved, it was hoped the rest could be addressed through planning conditions. For example conditions to control materials and colouring to ensure they were in keeping with the style of the area.

     ii.          Suggested the space between the building and boundary was 1.2m, not 1m as shown in the Officer’s report. Queried if this was large enough for access.

 

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

 

Councillor Avery proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that Officers would consult adjoining neighbours with samples of the external materials.

 

This amendment was carried by 7 votes to 0.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (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.

 

The Committee agreed that the adjoining neighbours would be consulted when samples of the external materials have been submitted and the sample panel has been erected. 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval to demolish the existing detached dwelling and erect two detached dwellings.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The area had a covenant specifying only 1 house should be built on each site.

     ii.          Took issue with details in the Officer’s report regarding impact of the proposal on neighbour’s amenities, plus height of the proposed buildings.

   iii.          Raised the following concerns:

·       Loss of light.

·       Overshadowing.

·       Loss of amenity.

 

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

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to defer the application to allow a shadow study to be submitted to determine what impact the proposed dwelling would have on the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers at no.36 Almoners Avenue.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of residential accommodation for the violin workshop on land at the rear of 66-68 Hartington Grove.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Ms Fabre.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Queried access to the property for construction traffic and possible workshop users.

     ii.          Asked for considerate construction conditions to control construction activity if the scheme went ahead.

   iii.          Queried impact of the scheme on the party wall.

   iv.          Suggested cycle storage should be as per 70 Hartington Grove.

    v.          Asked for reassurance the property would not be used as a house of multiple occupation for young students.

   vi.          Suggested there was not enough on-site accommodation for students.

 vii.          Requested a shadow study.

 

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

 

Councillor Dryden proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that neighbours should be given a named contact for proctorial control.

 

This amendment was carried by 7 votes to 0.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (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 below, plus subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Also subject to amendment to condition to include monitoring schedule to be provided of attendees every 6 months and an informative regarding the Council’s Considerate Contractor Scheme.

 

Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

 

Amended Condition 11

 

Prior to the commencement of the development a management plan for the use of the premises by the Violin workshop for residential courses shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The management plan shall include details of car parking arrangements, numbers of occupants, and measures to ensure the amenities of neighbouring residential properties are not adversely affected.  The premises shall be operated in accordance with the management plan.

 

Reason:  To ensure that the impact of the use premises for student accommodation provided by the violin workshop is managed to minimise the impact on surrounding residential properties.  Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4.

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for alterations to provide dependant relative's annex single storey side and rear extensions.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to defer to enable further consideration of the application proposal following new information coming to light about the use of the single storey side extension and the Enforcement Team to be consulted on the possible use of the extension as a self-contained unit.

 

The application is requested to be presented at the next South Area Committee in August.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey front extension, part single storey, part two storey rear extension and two storey side extension.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0) to defer to allow further information to be submitted regarding car parking layout at the front of the property and for the enforcement team to assess whether the property is being used as a house in multiple occupation.

 

The application is requested to be presented at the next South Area Committee in August.

Councillor Pippas withdrew from the discussion and room, and did not vote.

 

The Committee received an application for a new residential development comprising six 2-bed flats, one 3-bed flat, car parking, cycle store, refuse store, landscaping and modified vehicular access to Mowbray Road following demolition of existing house and garage, 33 Queen Edith’s Way.

 

The application sought approval for the amendment to the contributions required for the s106 agreement so that it includes the financial contribution detailed in paragraph 3.4 of the Officer’s report.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (6 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to approve the change to the s106 agreement so that it includes the financial contribution detailed in paragraph 3.4 of the Officer’s report.