Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest from Members on matters arising in this agenda.

The following personal interests were declared:

A number of Members stated their memberships of faith groups, but this was not believed to be a necessary declaration.

Councillor MJ Mason referred to the Secretary of State’s decision, just published, on the application for the guided bus and asked leave to propose that Council re-examine the transport policies within the Local Development Framework to incorporate that decision.  He requested as an alternative, if no seconder were forthcoming, that the Planning Policy Manager make a statement on the decision.

The Planning Policy Manager reported that he had been advised of the decision by a County Council officer at 4.45 pm the previous day and had been assured that the County Council had not known of the decision when they had briefed Members two days earlier.  A press release had been issued this morning.  The decision granted planning permission for the guided bus as sought by the County Council, subject to some minor modifications, and had been issued nearly two months before the deadline stated in the House of Commons.

The Local Development Framework (LDF) would still have been submitted to the Secretary of State by 6 January 2006 even if the guided bus decision had not then been made.  The Planning Policy Manager did not believe that the decision raised new matters but, even if it did, the policy required that no properties at Northstowe be occupied until the guided bus was in operation, so there was no need to delay the submission of the LDF.  Copies of the decision were made available for Members.

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder welcomed the early decision and expressed the belief that it did not significantly affect the Northstowe decisions and that the LDF transport decisions remained intact.

The Planning Policy Manager agreed with Councillor SM Edwards that dialogue should be started now if emergency access to Northstowe still needed to use the guided busway.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on the 15 November, 18 November, 22 November and 25 November 2005 as correct records.

The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 15, 18, 22 and 25 November 2005 as correct records, subject to the following amendments:

15 November 2005

Declarations of Interest (Minute 1)

Amend Councillor Manning’s declaration to include the ownership of land in Over and Councillor Edward’s to the lease of land in the Oakington Green Belt, not ownership of land in Over

Add Councillors Kindersley and Batchelor’s declarations as County Councillors

Development North West of Cambridge (page 3, 1st paragraph)

Amend “Histon Road” to “Huntingdon Road”

Lord’s Bridge  (page 5, 3^rd paragraph)

Amend “impaction on the Lord’s Bridge site” to “impacting on the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory”

Renewable Energy  (page 5, 5^th paragraph)

Amend “minimum” to “threshold”

18 November 2005

Policy C4 – Mitigating the Impact of Northstowe on Existing Communities

(page 13, 2^nd paragraph)

Amend 3^rd line to read: “all parts of existing Conservation Areas, whether built or open areas, must remain part of the villages in which they currently reside….”

22 November 2005

Cambridge East Area Action Plan  (Minute 2, 2^nd paragraph)

Second sentence – amend “The” to “To”

Policy CE/2 Development Principles  (page 20, 7^th paragraph)

Amend “principals” to “principles”

C – The Site and Its Setting  (page 21, 1^st paragraph)

First line – amend “western end” to “eastern end”

D5 – Employment  (page 22, 7^th paragraph)

Delete “s” from “generals”

The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 15, 18, 22 and 25 November 2005 as correct records, subject to the following amendments:

15 November 2005

Declarations of Interest (Minute 1)

Amend Councillor Manning’s declaration to include the ownership of land in Over and Councillor Edward’s to the lease of land in the Oakington Green Belt, not ownership of land in Over

Add Councillors Kindersley and Batchelor’s declarations as County Councillors

Introduction (page 2, 1^st full paragraph)

Amend “to” to “it” in the last sentence

Development North West of Cambridge (page 3, 1^st  paragraph)

Amend “Histon Road” to “Huntingdon Road”

Lord’s Bridge  (page 5, 3^rd paragraph)

Amend “impaction on the Lord’s Bridge site” to “impacting on the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory”

Renewable Energy  (page 5, 5^th paragraph)

Amend “minimum” to “threshold”

18 November 2005

Policy C4 – Mitigating the Impact of Northstowe on Existing Communities

(page 13, 2^nd paragraph)

Amend 3^rd line of the Minutes to read: “all parts of existing Conservation Areas, whether built or open areas, must remain part of the villages in which they currently reside….”

The Planning Policy Manager advised that the Conservation Area was already shown as part of the Longstanton inset map, so no change was required to the plans.  The amendment was a clarification of the Parish Council’s views.

That the sentence “All parts of existing Conservation Areas, whether built or open areas, must remain part of the villages in which they currently reside.” be added to Policies NS/6 and SP/15.

22 November 2005

Cambridge East Area Action Plan (Minute 2, 2^nd paragraph)

Second sentence – amend “The” to “To”

Policy CE/2 Development Principles  (page 20, 7^th paragraph)

Amend “principals” to “principles”

C – The Site and Its Setting  (page 21, 1^st paragraph)

First line – amend “western end” to “eastern end”

D5 – Employment  (page 22, 7^th paragraph)

Delete “s” from “generals”

The Leader confirmed that no discussions had been held on the site for a new sewage works at Cambridge Northern Fringe East.

The Planning Policy Manager reminded Members that this meeting was to deal with matters deferred by earlier meetings and that it was important to move the Framework forward so that the Council could plan development as it felt best.  He congratulated Council on reaching this stage.

Mr Miles advised Members of government consultations on revisions to PPS3 urging local planning authorities to approve planning applications for housing in advance of formalised Plans where there was a shortage of housing.  The government was keen to see an increase in the rate of house building.  The LDF should be adopted in April 2007 so the Council was in a good position to rely on it.  Although the effect on the application for Northstowe already lodged was not yet certain since the consultation paper had only just been published, it was unlikely that the application would be ready for decision until near the end of the LDF process, by which time it could be relied upon.  In any event, there were criteria other than prematurity on which the application would be judged.

Members expressed concern that the government appeared to be trying to force housing development at a time when the housing market was slowing and that applications approved prior to the adoption of the LDF could cut across intended land allocations.

Councillors Mrs DSK Spink and Mrs DP Roberts observed that the current planning application for Northstowe would appear to be premature in view of the stage the Local Development Framework had reached, a view with which other Members concurred.

Council AGREED

(a)     To insert in the first sentence of paragraph 2.1 “or elsewhere” after “pressures to the south”;

(b)     That Haslingfield is correctly classified as a Group Village in Policy ST/5 because of its primary school;

(c)     To add to the definition of “climate proofing”, the words “for example minimising risk of flooding, minimising risk of subsidence, installing water saving measures and devices, and using materials that have low/zero CO₂ and green house gas emissions.”

(d)     To add to the Glossary a definition of “local needs”:

“The definition varies depending on the circumstances in which it is used.  Where talking about types of housing or employment provision in the district it will often relate to the needs of the wider Cambridge area.  Where talking about local needs as identified through the Housing Needs Survey it refers specifically to the needs of the district.  With regard to exceptions sites for affordable housing it refers to the needs of the village / parish.”

Council AGREED

(a)         To insert in the first sentence of paragraph 2.1 (Strategic Vision) “or elsewhere” after “pressures to the south”;

Noting Councillor Mrs EM Heazell’s concern that there was no room for groups of houses, Council nevertheless AGREED

(b)     That Haslingfield is correctly classified as a Group Village in Policy ST/5 because of its primary school;

Council further AGREED

(c)     To add to the definition of “climate proofing”, the words “for example minimising risk of flooding, minimising risk of subsidence, installing water saving measures and devices, and using materials that have low/zero CO₂ and green house gas emissions.”

(d)     To add to the Glossary a definition of “local needs”:

“The definition varies depending on the circumstances in which it is used.  Where talking about types of housing or employment provision in the district it will often relate to the needs of the wider Cambridge area.  Where talking about local needs as identified through the Housing Needs Survey it refers specifically to the needs of the district.  With regard to exceptions sites for affordable housing it refers to the needs of the village / parish.”

Council AGREED

(a)     To replace paragraph 3.7 with:

“Guidance on the preparation of a Health Impact Assessment can be found in the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.”;

(b)     To add a new sentence to paragraph 3.8, after the second sentence:

“Development at higher densities may require more innovative design to incorporate off-street car parking, for example, through integrating garages within the footprint of dwellings or underground parking.”;

(c)         To amend the proposed Green Belt boundary around Willingham to follow the Village Framework except to the east of Haden Way and west of Station Road, where it should follow the lines of fences and a hawthorn hedge and east of Station Road where it should follow the awarded watercourse;

(d)     That the Over Green Belt boundary revert to that proposed on the Pre-Submission Proposals Map and the changes proposed on the 15^th November 2005 be rescinded;

(e)     That the triangle of land between the grounds of Sawston Hall and properties fronting St Mary’s Road, Sawston should remain outside the village framework and within the Green Belt;

(f)      that Policy HG/2 should not include a floorspace threshold or number of bedrooms in relation to housing mix, but should include a requirement for a proportion (not to be specified) of new dwellings to be designed to lifetime mobility standards;

(g)     To replace Policy HG/9 paragraph 4, with:

“Dwellings associated with the keeping of horses are an inappropriate form of development in the countryside.  Where the future need for accommodation is anticipated, stables should be located close to an existing dwelling, or suitable building capable of conversion to such use.  Dwellings for horse enterprises will be considered in accordance with the tests for other rural-based enterprises.”;

(h)     To add a new sentence to paragraph 5.39, following the first sentence:

“It is not considered that the security of horses justifies the provision of a dwelling and there are other methods of providing site security.”;

(i)      To delete paragraph 5.40;

(j)      To add to the end of paragraph 5.41 “where they comprise a rural enterprise.”;

(k)     To revise paragraph 5.42 to read:

“…will be prepared for dwellings associated with a rural enterprise.”;

(l)      That, subject to clarification with the Observatory on the developments on which consultation is needed, a new policy paragraph be added to Policy SF/10:

“Within the ‘Lords Bridge Consultation Area 2’ (defined on the Proposals Map), development proposals for telecommunications and microwave operations that could adversely affect the operation of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory at Lord’s Bridge will be subject to consultation with the University of Cambridge, and account will be taken of the risk of interference to the equipment being used at the Observatory.  Planning permission will be refused where interference would be caused that could not be overcome by conditions or by the use of planning obligations.”;

(m)   To add new Important Countryside Frontages at Over where the countryside penetrates to streets or paths which afford the countryside views from public viewpoints which contribute to the character  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

Council AGREED

(a)     To replace paragraph 3.7 to Policy DP/1 (Sustainable Development) with:

“Guidance on the preparation of a Health Impact Assessment can be found in the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.”;

(b)     To add a new sentence to paragraph 3.8 to Policy DP/2 (Design of New Development), after the second sentence:

“Development at higher densities may require more innovative design to incorporate off-street car parking, for example, through integrating garages within the footprint of dwellings or underground parking.”.

Willingham Green Belt Boundary

Councillor RMA Manning left the meeting for this item.

The Planning Policy Manager reminded Members that representations had been received to draw the Green Belt boundary at Willingham a little more loosely in order to leave some white land, in particular between Haden Way and Station Road.  Officers had been asked to consult the Parish Council and had done so: the plan with the agenda showed the Parish Council’s preferred boundary.  The option existed to leave white land on the edge of a settlement if it was felt that the village might need room for expansion and, in this case, the Parish Council had felt that this piece of land was small, sufficiently compromised by other development, near facilities and might be suitable for development in the future.

Councillor Mrs PS Corney, local Member, presented an alternative boundary following hedges and watercourses, which, she considered, would be clearer on the ground and did not cut through gardens.  It would have the effect of moving the Green Belt boundary further away from properties on the west of Station Road and the south of Newington.  She reminded Members that the object was to protect Willingham from Northstowe, not to constrain the existing village.

Several Members were uneasy at changing the Green Belt boundary without public consultation, but were assured that Willingham Parish Council had made it clear for years that they were in favour of some further development and that the land east of Haden Way would remain outside the Village Framework . The public still had an opportunity to comment after the LDF had been submitted to the Secretary of State.

Council, on two formal votes, each by 13 votes to 11, AGREED

(c)     To amend the proposed Green Belt boundary around Willingham to follow the Village Framework except to the east of Haden Way and west of Station Road, where it should follow the lines of fences and a hawthorn hedge, and east of Station Road where it should follow the awarded watercourse as far east as Rampton Road, as shown on the map attached to minutes.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts recorded her vote against these decisions.

Over Green Belt Boundary

Councillor RMA Manning left the meeting for this item.

Council, at the request of Over Parish Council, AGREED

(d)     That the Over Green Belt boundary revert to that proposed on the Pre-Submission Proposals Map and the changes proposed on the 15^th November 2005 be rescinded;

Sawston Green Belt Boundary

On behalf of Sawston  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Council, at its meeting of 15 November 2005, agreed to seek the views of Papworth Everard Parish Council before making a decision on Policy SP/11 Papworth Hospital Site.  A letter from Papworth Everard Parish Council is attached for information.

 Council

It was NOTED that the following note had been added at the end of Policy SP/2:

“Note:  Planning permission was granted in June 2005.  It is included in the LDF due to gaining permission after March 2005, to ensure the housing land supply it creates is acknowledged.”

Council AGREED

(a)     To add the words “(excluding glass houses)” to the first sentence of Policy SP/10 after “buildings”;

(b)     That Policy SP/11, Papworth Everard Village Development, Site 1 – Papworth Hospital Site, be revised as set out in Appendix 1 to the Minutes

Bayer Cropscience Site, Hauxton

Councillor JPR Orme was not present for this discussion, taken immediately after the introduction to the purpose of the meeting.

Council on 15 November had deferred a decision on the allocation of this site for development pending consultations with the local Member and Hauxton Parish Council.  Mr Tony Allison, Chairman of the Parish Council, confirmed that Council’s acceptance of the proposals, with requests for a new access road from Church Road to delineate housing from commercial areas and that the existing village should benefit from any Section 106 Agreement.  Councillor Dr JA Heap also confirmed agreement.

The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the wording in Policy SP/2 relating to contaminated land had been changed as a result of the earlier debate.

Council AGREED

(a)         That the Bayer Cropscience site at Hauxton be allocated in the Local Development Framework for sustainable mixed use development;

(b)         That Policy SP/2 include a requirement for contributions to benefit the existing village of Hauxton.

It was NOTED that the following note had been added at the end of Policy SP/2:

“Note:  Planning permission was granted in June 2005.  It is included in the LDF due to gaining permission after March 2005, to ensure the housing land supply it creates is acknowledged.”

Papworth Hospital Site

The Planning Policy Manager reported, supported by Councillor NIC Wright, that meetings with various sections of the community at Papworth Everard had confirmed that the proposed policy for the hospital site was very close to local aspirations.  The principle objective of use for healthcare had been clarified, together with the need to maintain a sustainable employment mix.  Indications were that Papworth Hospital would be re-provided on the Addenbrooke’s site in 2011, giving a 3-4 year period to market the site.

Council AGREED

(b)     To add the words “(excluding glass houses)” to the first sentence of Policy SP/10 after “buildings”;

(c)     That Policy SP/11, Papworth Everard Village Development, Site 1 – Papworth Hospital Site, be revised as set out in Appendix 1 to the Minutes

Council AGREED

(a)         That the following amendments be made to Policy NS/6 (Green Separation):

(1)   Amend the Village Framework to include St Michael’s Mount and identify the grounds as a Protected Village Amenity Area;

(2)   Delete the first sentence of Policy NS/6 (4).  The Policy will now read:

      “The landscape character of a series of paddocks and small copses will be maintained and enhanced adjoining St Michael’s Mount.”

(3)   Delete the first sentence of paragraph C4.5 and amend the second sentence to read:

      “That part of the Green Separation which lies within Oakington Airfield will be landscaped as a series of paddocks and hedgerows as is typical of the setting of Longstanton St Michael’s.”;

(b)     that Policy NS/8 (Town Centre), paragraph 1(b), be amended to read:

“Within rather than on the edge of Northstowe and at least 200 metres to the east of Rampton Drift.”;

(c)     That Policy NS13/13 (2) (A14 Improvements) be amended to read:

“Planning permission for Northstowe will be subject to conditions requiring that sufficient highway capacity is available in the A14 corridor between Bar Hill and Cambridge throughout the development of Northstowe for the traffic forecast to be generated by each phase of new town development and ultimately for 8,000 dwellings.  Such conditions (which may include ‘Grampian’ style conditions) will link the start and phased development of the new town to the opening of any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor.  The improvements that will be necessary for each phase of development will be identified once the A14 improvement scheme has been agreed by Government.”;

(d)     That in Policy NS/22(8n) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be amended to “100m”;

(e)     That the words “or underground pipe” be inserted after “a new channel” in Policy NS/24(4e) (Mitigating Flood Risk at Oakington);

(f)      That the last sentence of paragraph D12.5 be replaced with:

“Should the environmental impact of such a channel prove unacceptable because of the depth and width of the cut through green separation, an underground pipe will be required." ;

(g)     That the words “at the cost of the development” be retained in Policy NS/24(7i) (Management and Maintenance of Watercourses).

Village Framework

Councillor SGM Kindersley reported that he had been instructed by Longstanton Parish Council to state that the proposed amendments looked encouraging.

Council AGREED

(a)         That the following amendments be made to Policy NS/6 (Green Separation):

(1)   Amend the Village Framework to include St Michael’s Mount and identify the grounds as a Protected Village Amenity Area;

(2)   Delete the first sentence of Policy NS/6 (4).  The Policy will now read:

      “The landscape character of a series of paddocks and small copses will be maintained and enhanced adjoining St Michael’s Mount.”

(3)   Delete the first sentence of paragraph C4.5 and amend the second sentence to read:

      “That part of the Green Separation which lies within Oakington Airfield will be landscaped as a series of paddocks and hedgerows as is typical of the setting of Longstanton St Michael’s.”;

Town Centre

The Planning Policy Manager outlined the reasons for the proposed amendment and stated that the town centre should not be visible from nor affect Oakington.  Councillor SM Edwards pointed out that the main issue had been the siting of the employment area, which was to be between the town centre and Oakington, but felt that paragraph (3) of the report covered the point.

Council AGREED

(b)     that Policy NS/8 (Town Centre), paragraph 1(b), be amended to read:

“Within rather than on the edge of Northstowe and at least 200 metres to the east of Rampton Drift.”;

Relationship to A14 Improvements

Noting that “which may include Grampian style conditions” gave the Council sufficient powers, Council AGREED

(c)     That Policy NS13/13 (2) (A14 Improvements) be amended to read:

“Planning permission for Northstowe will be subject to conditions requiring that sufficient highway capacity is available in the A14 corridor between Bar Hill and Cambridge throughout the development of Northstowe for the traffic forecast to be generated by each phase of new town development and ultimately for 8,000 dwellings.  Such conditions (which may include ‘Grampian’ style conditions) will link the start and phased development of the new town to the opening of any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor.  The improvements that will be necessary for each phase of development will be identified once the A14 improvement scheme has been agreed by Government.”;

Council further AGREED

(d)     That in Policy NS/22(8n) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be amended to “100m”;

(e)     That the words “or underground pipe” be inserted after “a new channel” in Policy NS/24(4e) (Mitigating Flood Risk at Oakington);

(f)      That the last sentence of paragraph D12.5 be replaced with:

“Should the environmental impact of such a channel prove unacceptable because of the depth and width of the cut through green separation, an underground pipe will be required." ;

(g)     That the words “at the cost of the development” be retained in Policy NS/24(7i) (Management and Maintenance of Watercourses).

Council AGREED

(a)     That Policy CE/13(2) be reworded to read:

“Planning permission for Cambridge East will be subject to conditions requiring that sufficient highway capacity is available in the A14 corridor throughout the development of Cambridge East for the traffic forecast to be generated by each phase of development and ultimately for 10,000-12,000 dwellings.  Such conditions (which may include ‘Grampian’ style conditions*) will link the start and phased development of the urban quarter to the opening of any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor.“ ;

(b)     that a similar wording be included for Cambridge North East, to link development and any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor;

(c)     that a second sentence be added to paragraph D7.30:

“Development at higher densities may require more innovative design to incorporate off-street car parking, for example through integrating garages within the footprint of dwellings and underground parking.” ;

 (d)    That in Policy CE/24 (7m) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be replaced with “100m”.

Council AGREED

(a)     That Policy CE/13(2) be reworded to read:

“Planning permission for Cambridge East will be subject to conditions requiring that sufficient highway capacity is available in the A14 corridor throughout the development of Cambridge East for the traffic forecast to be generated by each phase of development and ultimately for 10,000-12,000 dwellings.  Such conditions (which may include ‘Grampian’ style conditions*) will link the start and phased development of the urban quarter to the opening of any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor.“ ;

(b)     that, for consistency, a similar wording be included for Cambridge Northern Fringe East, to link development and any necessary improvements to the A14 corridor;

(c)     that a second sentence be added to paragraph D7.30:

“Development at higher densities may require more innovative design to incorporate off-street car parking, for example through integrating garages within the footprint of dwellings and underground parking.” ;

 (d)    That in Policy CE/24 (7m) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be replaced with “100m”.

Council AGREED

(a)         That the word “education” be inserted after “facilities” in Policy CSF/9(2);

(b)         To insert a new paragraph after paragraph D4.4:

D4.4A  The range of community services and facilities needed to serve Trumpington West as a whole will be determined through joint working between the two local planning authorities and the County Council as service provider.  Facilities may be located in either the City or South Cambridgeshire depending on detailed masterplanning.  The County Council has advised that a single primary school will be provided to serve the whole development at Trumpington West.”

(c)     That a new Section 5 be added to Policy CSF/10 (Road Infrastructure):

“5.  No dwellings at Trumpington West shall be occupied until the Addenbrooke’s access road is completed. “

(d)     That in Policy CSF/174 (4a) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be replaced with “100m”

(e)     That a new criterion be added after Policy CSF/22(2) (Site Accesses and Haul Roads):

“2A.  No construction traffic will be permitted to access the site during peak hours to avoid exacerbating existing congestion on Hauxton Road.”

Councillor Mrs EM Heazell left the meeting for this item.

Council AGREED

(a)         That the word “education” be inserted after “facilities” in Policy CSF/9(2);

(b)         To insert a new paragraph after paragraph D4.4:

D4.4A  The range of community services and facilities needed to serve Trumpington West as a whole will be determined through joint working between the two local planning authorities and the County Council as service provider.  Facilities may be located in either the City or South Cambridgeshire depending on detailed masterplanning.  The County Council has advised that a single primary school will be provided to serve the whole development at Trumpington West.”

(c)     That a new Section 5 be added to Policy CSF/10 (Road Infrastructure):

“5.  No dwellings at Trumpington West shall be occupied until the Addenbrooke’s access road is completed. “ and that Cambridge City Council be requested to take the same approach.

(d)     That in Policy CSF/174 (4a) (Location of Children’s Play Areas and Youth Facilities), “60m” be replaced with “100m”

Transport

The Planning Policy Manager reported that the Department of Transport insisted that contractors for the guided bus installation take part in the considerate contractor scheme.

Council AGREED

(e)     That a new criterion be added after Policy CSF/22(2) (Site Accesses and Haul Roads):

“2A.  No construction traffic will be permitted to access the site during peak hours to avoid exacerbating existing congestion on Hauxton Road.”

Councillor CR Nightingale, local Member, expressed concern about the effect of construction traffic on Great Shelford and asked for reference to the village since it was not part of the Southern Fringe.  The Planning Policy Manager advised that the intention was to cover all the villages in the District in the proposed addition to Policy DP/6 of the Development Control Policies DPD, but would clarify the wording with the Portfolio Holder.

Council AGREED 

(a)         that the proposed changes as agreed above be incorporated into the draft LDF documents and that the LDF BE SUBMITTED to the Secretary of State in January 2006; and

(b)         to DELEGATE further minor editing changes to the DPDs to the Planning Portfolio Holder where they involve matters of policy and to the Development Services Director where they are technical matters.

Council AGREED 

(a)         that the proposed changes as agreed above be incorporated into the draft LDF documents and that the LDF BE SUBMITTED to the Secretary of State in January 2006; and

(b)         to DELEGATE further minor editing changes to the DPDs to the Planning Portfolio Holder where they involve matters of policy and to the Development Services Director where they are technical matters.

The Leader, on behalf of the Council, thanked the Planning Policy Manager and the Principal Planning Policy Officer for their work and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the conduct of the meetings.  The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder endorsed these thanks and also thanked Members for attending the meetings.  Appreciation was also expressed to Mr M Monk, former Principal Planning Policy Officer.

The Planning Policy Manager accepted these thanks, but commented that this had been a whole Council effort.