Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Nethsingha and Tunnacliffe.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2016. Minutes to follow.

The Committee is asked to note a correction to the minutes of the meeting of the 6 April 2016. Minute 16/63/Plan recorded the vote as 7 to 0. This should have read 5 to 2 with one abstention.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6^th July 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee noted the correction to the minutes of the meeting of the 6^th April 2016.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

Development of up to 75,000 sqm floorspace excluding plant areas) of Research and Development (B1b) and Clinical (C2 and/or D1), sui generis and higher education uses, including related support activities within use class B1; ancillary uses in addition (A1, A3, A4, A5, D1 and/or D2); up to two multi storey car parks; open space and landscaping and all other associated supporting infrastructure.

The Planning Officer updated his report with the following details:

i.             Condition 3 time period to be changed from three years to five years.

ii.            Condition 5 – time period for submission of reserved matters application to be reinserted as per agenda report pack circulated. Time period to be changed from six years to nine years.

iii.           Conditions to be renumbered accordingly from condition 5 onwards to reflect reinsertion of condition 5.

Andrew Blevins (One of the Applicants) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, subject to the completion of a s106 agreement by 26 October 2016 and any further changes to conditions being agreed under delegated powers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of a building for Biotech and Biomedical research and development and production together with associated supporting Headquarters and Logistics function along with associated infrastructure to include; access, services, drainage, electric and gas infrastructure, external ancillary structures, car and cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

The Planning Officer updated his report and referred to amended conditions contained within the amendment sheet.

Danielle Miller (on behalf of Abcam Plc) and Christian Coop (NBBJ Architects) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 as amended in the amendment sheet, completion of s106 agreement by 26 October 2016 and any further changes to conditions to be agreed under delegated powers.

The Committee received an application for reserved matters permission.

The application sought approval for reserved matters consent, pursuant to outline approval 06/0796/OUT (varied by S73 application reference 14/2094/S73) for a 9,033sqm (Gross External Area excluding plant) Biotech and Biomedical Research and Development building, including associated car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, internal access roads , supporting facilities and ancillary infrastructure.

The Principal Planner (City) updated his report with the following details:

i.             Condition 9 (Air Quality) part ii, the Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions standards of compressed ignition engine figure should read ‘400mg NOx/Nm3’ and not ‘40mg NOx/ Nm3’.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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 and the amendments contained in the amendment sheet and the alteration to condition 9.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for part retrospective full planning application for the retention of 25No. storage containers. Proposed installation of a further 34No. storage containers, providing a total of 59 containers.

Mr Conway (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) 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 received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought permission for a revised location of footbridge north of the originally approved location together with revised arrangement for footpath links.  Officers referred to the Pre-Committee amendment sheet tabled at the meeting. 

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

The representation covered the following issues:

i.     Expressed concern that objections were being ignored in favour of residents of Accordia.

ii.     Highlighted that construction of the bridge would only benefit the resident of Accordia and have a detrimental impact on the residents on the west side of the brook.

iii.    Questioned the benefits to residents east of the bridge.

iv.   Questioned the rationale for the bridge to provide a short cut when it was primarily designed for exercise.

v.     Drew attention to Brookland Avenue that already provided access to the community orchard.

vi.    The design would not deter cyclists from using the bridge

The Committee.

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the extension and conversion of a single dwelling house into three self-contained flats

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers

The Committee received a full application.

The application sought permission for the part demolition of existing mixed dwelling/guesthouse and brick built garage and erection of four residential flats.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

The application sought approval for the erection of 2.no dwellings with associated access, parking and gardens.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the extension of height of existing buildings to one and half storeys along with change of use from A1 to a flexible consent containing Use Classes A1, A2 and B1.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to grant application for planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for the conversion of former hair salon to form one bedroom dwelling.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) to refuse planning permission for the conversion of a former hair salon to form one bedroom dwelling in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for retrospective roof extension incorporating rear dormer with juliet balcony.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to grant retrospective planning permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.