Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting. Details on how to view or hear the meeting can be found on the front page of the agenda
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: Officers recommend 20-0010-FUL ARU withdrawn from agenda
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Smart. Councillor Thornburrow
was present as the Alternate. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019, 8 January 2020 and
5 February 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
19-1430-FUL report 38 Chesterton Hall Cres PDF 119 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval for the erection of a one bedroom, two storey house replacing an existing garage. The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application from a resident of 40
Chesterton Hall: i.
Objected to this application from the start, on
well-established planning grounds. The positive quotes attributed to him in
point 7 of the Design and Access Statement were fabricated, which he regarded
as objectionable. ii.
Specific concerns: a.
The proposed development would not respect the character and
appearance of the surrounding area. This application proposed demolishing a
building that’s integral to the architectural merit of the street, replacing it
with one that was the opposite. b.
Contrary to the report summary, the proposed development
would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding
occupiers. The Objector would lose light to five windows if this proposal were
to go ahead, some light would be blocked off almost completely. c.
The proposed development would not provide a good level of
outdoor amenity for future occupants. Lowering the wall at the back of the
property would not alter the size of that strip of outdoor space, which was
barely wide enough for a chair. Many of the basic elements of the 2004 proposal
remained, which had been refused planning permission. iii.
Residents in thirteen local properties had submitted written
objections to this development. Not one resident had written in favour of it. Mr Corbett (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the
application. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation requiring: i. Provision of bird/bat box. ii. Details of front boundary wall. These amendments were carried
unanimously. Councillor Sargeant proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation requiring details of cycle
shelters and bin storage. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
requiring the re-instatement of a drop kerb to the front. This amendment was carried
unanimously. The Committee: Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to grant the application
for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the
reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; and
ii.
the following additional
conditions with delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions: a. provision of bird/bat box. b. details of front boundary wall c. details of cycle shelters and bin storage. d. re-instatement of the drop kerb
to the front. |
|||||||
20-0010-FUL report ARU PDF 87 KB Minutes: Item withdrawn from agenda to enable additional consultation. Since the officer’s report was drafted, further information was provided by the applicant’s agent confirming the number of lockers (65 no.) proposed within the bank of lockers. Officers have considered it necessary to consult the Environmental Health team on this additional information and have therefore withdrawn the item from the agenda. |
|||||||
19-0960-FUL report 440 Cherry Hinton Road PDF 156 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application sought approval for the erection of a one
bedroom dwelling. Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation
for an additional condition that
no vehicular access points shall be made on any boundary of the site. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Sargeant proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation that no footpaths were blocked during construction. This amendment was carried
unanimously. Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s
recommendation: i. Condition 17 amended to include hedgehog gaps
in boundary treatment. ii. Fire engine access. This amendment was carried
unanimously. 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’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report; and
ii.
the following additional
conditions with delegated authority to Officers to draft
the conditions: a. additional condition that no vehicular access
points shall be made on any boundary of the site; b. Condition 17 amended to include hedgehog gaps
in boundary treatment; and
iii.
informatives included on the
planning permission in respect of: a. Fire engine access; b. That footpaths were not blocked during construction. |
|||||||
19-1669-FUL report 101 Perse Way PDF 115 KB Minutes: The Committee
received an application for full planning permission. The application
sought approval to change the existing use (dwelling, use class C3) to a 9-bed
(10 person) House of Multiple Occupancy (sui generis use class), together with
the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension, single storey front and
rear extensions, rear roof extension, and detached cycle store in rear garden.
The proposed cycle store, located within the rear garden, would be accessed
using the existing public pedestrian footpath to the north of the site. Councillor Baigent proposed an additional condition to the Officer’s
recommendation that the
communal area was retained. This amendment was carried
unanimously. 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’s report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer plus
an extra condition that the
communal area was retained. |