Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Todd-Jones.

Councillor	Item	Interest
Pitt	13/66c/NAC	Personal: Executive Councillor responsible for allocating the grant to fund the extension. Whilst not a prejudicial interest, Councillor Pitt decided to not take part in the discussion or the vote.

 

The minutes of the 1 August meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a two storey rear extension to existing house and conversion to 2 (2 bed) flats.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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 Case Officer highlighted the following minor correction to Condition 6 of the officer’s report (deletion struck through):

 

The rooflight above the sleeping platform on the western roof slope  shall be obscure glazed to a minimum level of obscurity to conform

to Pilkington Glass level 3 or equivalent prior to commencement of

use (of the extension) and shall be fixed shut, and shall be  retained as such thereafter.

 

The application sought approval for the conversion of redundant vehicle workshop into 1 no single bed dwelling.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          As the driveway was a right of way, occupants could not park a car along it as it would block the rear gardens of the houses on Victoria Road.

     ii.          Concern over access for emergency vehicles.

 

Mr Sewell addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, subject to amendment of condition 6 to remove ‘(of the extension)’ and completion of s106 Agreement by 31 January 2013, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

 

In the absence of Councillor Pitt, Councillor Tunnacliffe Chaired this item.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey front extension with covered walkway and first floor rear extension of existing community hall

 

Mr Tristan Rees-Roberts and Mr Michael Bond addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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 subject to the following additional Informatives:

 

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the City Council’s Access Officer:

 

·       There should be a hearing loop in the annexe

·       The door should be 900 mm minimum width

·       The toilet doors should slide or open outwards

·       There should be a good colour contrast and signage for visually impaired users.

 

The Council requests that consideration be given to these issues as the scheme progresses to implementation.

 

 

 

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.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of 3no 1 bedroom flats.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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 subject to completion of s106 Agreement by 1 November 2013.

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a loft extension.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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.