Issue - meetings

CALDECOTE: Planning and Enforcement, Bourn Airfield

Meeting: 01/06/2016 - Planning Committee (Item 4)

4 S/2510/15/OL - Caldecote, (Land East of Highfields Road) pdf icon PDF 585 KB

Outline planning permission for up to 140 residential dwellings, (including up to 40% affordable housing), removal of existing temporary agricultural structures and debris, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play area, community orchard and allotments, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access points from Highfields Road and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Minutes:

Members visited the site on 31 May 2016.

 

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

 

In respect of application S/2830/15/OL in Balsham (Land at 22 Linton Road), the Planning Lawyer had advised that this was the safest course of action following the receipt of legal advice from Queen’s Counsel that would require careful consideration by planning officers. Given the similar issues, and the implications for similar planning applications in Group Villages, planning officers withdrew application S/2510/15/OL from the agenda.


Meeting: 07/03/2012 - Planning Committee (Item 154)

154 0699/11 - Caldecote (adj 6 Main Street) pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Committee deferred the application to allow further discussion with Anglian Water in connection with concerns about the adequacy of the existing pumping station capacity, and for the applicant to provide the necessary information to address the concerns of the Local Highways Authority about highway safety issues.

Minutes:

Mr Levitt (Caldecote Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

 

The Committee deferred the application to allow further discussion with Anglian Water in connection with concerns about the adequacy of the existing pumping station capacity, and for the applicant to provide the necessary information to address the concerns of the Local Highways Authority about highway safety issues.


Meeting: 24/05/2007 - Council (Item 7)

From Councillor RB Martlew to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

“The response (to my previous question on the subject) from Cllr. Mrs. Spink as Planning Portfolio Holder included the statement that she considered that the present status of the metal conveyor belt was 'unlawful development'.

1.    What steps are being taken to bring this into a 'lawful' status?

2.                                      Is it possible at this stage to place an enforcement order on this development?

3.                                      Can I assume that had an enforcement order been placed on the conveyor belt development when it was first drawn to the attention of the Planning or Environmental Health Services; a normal planning application would have had to be submitted, or that legal proceedings could have been taken against TKA?

 

“If such a planning application had been made, can I assume that it would have involved

1.                  notification and consultation with the Parish Council, the residents, and the local member?

2.                  The PC and the local member and the residents having the opportunity to bring to the committee's attention the extent of the local problems?

3.                  A decision would have been made by the Planning Committee, taking into account those objections and any recommendations of the planning officers?

4.                  A decision, which could have included conditions on structure and materials; sighting and orientation; as well as restrictions on the timing of the use of that facility?

5.                  TKA having the right to have taken any decision to appeal?

 

“Failing to serve an enforcement order on TKA at the appropriate time prevented those parties from having an input into the decision.

·                       Please can you confirm the above?

·                       What measures are in place to ensure that such a failure does not occur again?

·                      Can we offer the residents any hope of improved conditions related to the noise they are subject to at present?

Minutes:

Councillor RB Martlew asked the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder the following question:

 

“The response (to my previous question on the subject) from Cllr. Mrs. Spink as Planning Portfolio Holder included the statement that she considered that the present status of the metal conveyor belt was 'unlawful development'.

1.     What steps are being taken to bring this into a 'lawful' status?

2.                                      Is it possible at this stage to place an enforcement order on this development?

3.                                      Can I assume that had an enforcement order been placed on the conveyor belt development when it was first drawn to the attention of the Planning or Environmental Health Services; a normal planning application would have had to be submitted, or that legal proceedings could have been taken against TKA?

 

“If such a planning application had been made, can I assume that it would have involved

1.                  Notification and consultation with the Parish Council, the residents, and the local member?

2.                  The PC and the local member and the residents having the opportunity to bring to the committee's attention the extent of the local problems?

3.                  A decision would have been made by the Planning Committee, taking into account those objections and any recommendations of the planning officers?

4.                  A decision, which could have included conditions on structure and materials; sighting and orientation; as well as restrictions on the timing of the use of that facility?

5.                  TKA having the right to have taken any decision to appeal?

 

“Failing to serve an enforcement order on TKA at the appropriate time prevented those parties from having aninput into the decision.

·                       Please can you confirm the above?

·                       What measures are in place to ensure that such a failure does not occur again?

·                      Can we offer the residents any hope of improved conditions related to the noise they are subject to at present?

 

Councillor Dr DR Bard, Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder, referred to the following letter by the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) which had been received by Councillor Martlew and would be circulated to all Members.

 

“I apologise for the delay in replying formally to your further questions of the 6th February 2007, to Cllr Bard.

 

First, can I just update you with the current situation regarding the second (LDC) Lawful Development Certificate application for the scrap metal conveyor and the planning application for its hood.  The LDC has recently been issued and the planning permission can now be granted for the hood.  The Area Environmental Health Officer, Brian Heffernan, will be writing to the complainants in the next few days to update them on the progress since the agreement between the Company and this Council was agreed last year, and he will copy you in.  It may be that more evening monitoring will be required in the summer months to assess the worst-case conditions for the complainants.  Once planning permission is granted for the conveyor housing he will encourage the company to carry out the modification  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7


Meeting: 25/01/2007 - Council (Item 7)

From Councillor RB Martlew to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder

A settlement was agreed, I believe in May 2006, between this Council and TKA Tallent of Bourn Airfield concerning the noise nuisance experienced by residents of Caldecote. A meeting was held in September last to explain the agreement to Caldecote Parish Council and the residents. At my request Planning Officers as well as officer from Environmental Services and the Legal Section attended.

 

On behalf of the residents I asked what the position was regarding the ground for an applicant seeking permission to apply for Lawful Development status; specifically what measure needed to be taken to prevent a four-year claim from becoming established. The planning officers present were unable to provide this information but promised to do so as a result of that meeting. In spite of various approaches to me to various officers, no explanation has been received to date. I have discovered various factors however and ask the Portfolio Holder to confirm the following:

 

(i)                  to prevent an unauthorised development from establishing a right after 4 years to a Lawful Development Certificate, an enforcement notice must be served by the Planning Authority.

(ii)                Complaints from residents and the Parish Council together with photographic and other evidence about the timing of the installation of the conveyor were received by the Council from 2001.

(iii)               An application for lawful development was received from TKA Tallent and refused in or around September 2005.

(iv)              A further application was received around September 2006.

 

Could the Portfolio Holder tell us:

 

(i)                  Why no enforcement notice was issued before, or at least following, the first rejection of the application for a certificate?

(ii)                Whether the second application has been accepted?

(iii)               What is the present status of the conveyor?

(iv)              At what stages Members were involved in the decision-making process?

(v)                If, as I suspect, there was no Member involvement, why was this so?

Decision:

Following a brief discussion, the matter was referred for consideration by the appropriate Corporate Manager and by the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

Minutes:

Councillor RB Martlew asked the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder the following question:

 

A settlement was agreed, I believe in May 2006, between this Council and TKA Tallent of Bourn Airfield concerning the noise nuisance experienced by residents of Caldecote. A meeting was held in September last to explain the agreement to Caldecote Parish Council and the residents. At my request Planning Officers as well as officers from Environmental Services and the Legal Section attended.

 

On behalf of the residents I asked what the position was regarding the grounds for an applicant seeking permission to apply for Lawful Development status; specifically what measure needed to be taken to prevent a four-year claim from becoming established. The planning officers present were unable to provide this information but promised to do so as a result of that meeting. In spite of various approaches to various officers, no explanation has been received to date. I have discovered various facts however and ask the Portfolio Holder to confirm the following:

 

(i)                  To prevent an unauthorised development from establishing a right after 4 years to a Lawful Development Certificate, an enforcement notice must be served by the Planning Authority.

(ii)                Complaints from residents and the Parish Council together with photographic and other evidence about the timing of the installation of the conveyor were received by the Council from 2001.

(iii)               An application for lawful development was received from TKA Tallent and refused in or around September 2005.

(iv)              A further application was received around September 2006.

 

Could the Portfolio Holder tell us:

 

(i)                  Why no enforcement notice was issued before, or at least following, the first rejection of the application for a certificate?

(ii)                Whether the second application has been accepted?

(iii)               What is the present status of the conveyor?

(iv)              At what stages Members were involved in the decision-making process?

(v)                If, as I suspect, there was no Member involvement, why was this so?

 

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink MBE, Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder, referred Councillor RB Martlew to her detailed written response which had been circulated to all Members prior to the meeting.

 

Councillor Martlew thanked Councillor Mrs Spink for her response. He reiterated that the problems had been caused by continuing delay and inaction, and that, as a result, residents were suffering serious noise problems.

 

Following a brief discussion, the matter was referred for consideration by the appropriate Corporate Manager and by the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.