Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a
replacement dwelling.
The Committee received
a representation in objection to the application on behalf of local residents.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
Queried why the existing dwelling
would be demolished and replaced. Suggested this proposal was not included in
the original iteration or ex ante permission. Queried why the City Council had
contacted the Applicant to include demolition of the existing property in their
proposal.
ii.
Suggested the application did not
comply with planning policy (eg character of the
area) as referenced in the Officer’s report in paragraphs 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15.
iii.
Suggested that ex ante permission
was given undue weight in the Officer’s recommendation.
iv.
Re-iterated that the 2015 decision
gave planning permission, not permission for demolition of the original
building.
Mr Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application.
Councillor Avery (Trumpington Ward Councillor)
addressed the Committee about the application.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
He
wanted the integrity of the Conservation Area protected.
ii.
Suggested
that on its own, the application would not be approved, but the Officer had
recommended approval on the strength of the ex ante permission. The permission
was given before Conservation Area status was given to the location. The
existing (ex ante) permission would not be granted now the location had
Conservation Area status and
there was no reason why it should be the overriding factor now.
iii.
Referred
to the summary in the Officer’s report setting out planning considerations.
iv.
Suggested
that demolition of the existing property was not included in the original
proposal.
v.
Queried
if the ex ante permission was still relevant.
vi.
Suggested
the site was being developed, not adapted as a family home.
vii.
Referred
to Queen’s Counsel comments included in residents’ representations stating that
councillors needed to exercise discretion when considering ex ante permission,
to be mindful of all issues, and not treat it as a definitive rule to follow.
viii.
Referred
to paragraph 10 in the Officer’s report stating the application could (but may
not) be called in by the National Planning Casework Unit for Secretary of
State determination if approval were granted by Planning
Committee.
ix.
The
replacement building did not have sufficient merit to be implemented.
The Principal Planner (TW) clarified that the change in planning
regulations regarding demolition meant that the previous description of
development for the scheme needed to be changed during its consideration to
reflect that permission also needed to include specific reference to
demolition. Officers had contacted the Agent to get the planning description
altered to reflect the change in legislation. As such, the existing permission
included demolition of the existing building.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) 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
conditions recommended by the officers and subject to the National Planning
Casework Unit determining whether the application should be called in for
determination by the Secretary of State.
Councillor Smart
participated in the meeting discussion but not the vote as he was not present
for the Officer’s introduction.