Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from committee members. Apologies have been received from Councillors Val Barrett, Tumi Hawkins, Ben Shelton and Robert Turner.

Councillors Val Barrett, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Ben Shelton and Robert Turner sent Apologies for Absence.

The Democratic Services Officer announced the following substitutes: Councillor Richard Barrett (for Councillor Shelton), Councillor Raymond Matthews (for Councillor Turner) and Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer (for Councillor Hawkins).

Councillor Charles Nightingale had been appointed to substitute for Councillor Val Barrett but was unable to attend on the day.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2014 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2014.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to enter into negotiations with the applicant and Meldreth Parish Council with a view to addressing local concerns about, among other things, the extent of the solar farm (by deleting from the proposal part or all of the southern field).

Roger James (objector), Andrew Hudson and Nick Barber (agents for the applicant), Rob Searles (Meldreth Parish Council) and Councillor Susan van de Ven (local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 4 March 2014.  The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to enter into negotiations with the applicant and Meldreth Parish Council with a view to addressing local concerns about, among other things, the extent of the solar farm (by deleting from the proposal part or all of the southern field).

The Committee granted officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to:

1.    The application being advertised as a Departure from the Local Development Framework 2007 and not being called in for determination by the Secretary of State

2.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing:

a.    Delivery of the affordable housing, including Mortgagee in Possession (MIP) provisions  and associated delivery matters

b.    Financial contributions towards community facilities, public art, public open space and South Cambridgeshire District Council legal fees (all as detailed in paragraph 28 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director)

c.    The establishment of  a scheme for the maintenance, in perpetuity, of the onsite sewerage treatment works

3.     Conditions referred to in the said report.

Amanda Tuck (supporting the application in principle but expressing some concern) and Colin Hoptroff (Orwell Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 4 March 2014. 

After being advised by the Senior Planning Lawyer about the existence of confidential financial information, seen by him, that amounted to a material planning consideration impacting delivery, the Committee granted officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to:

1.    The application being advertised as a Departure from the Local Development Framework 2007 and not being called in for determination by the Secretary of State

2.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing:

a.    Delivery of the affordable housing qualified by Mortgagee in Possession (MIP) provisions,  and associated delivery matters

b.    Financial contributions towards community facilities, public art, public open space and South Cambridgeshire District Council legal fees (all as detailed in paragraph 28 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director)

c.    The establishment of  a scheme for the maintenance, in perpetuity, of the onsite sewerage treatment works

3.    Conditions referred to in the said report.

The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to enter into negotiations with the applicant about design, layout, size of scheme and the maximum number of affordable housing units that could be provided while still maintaining viability of the scheme.

Mr Brookes (applicant) and Colin Parsons (Swavesey Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 4 March 2014.  The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to enter into negotiations with the applicant about design, layout, size of scheme and the maximum number of affordable housing units that could be provided while still maintaining viability of the scheme.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being design of the building, adverse impact on the character ofte area and adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.

Chris Tomsett (objector), Simon Richardson (agent for the applicant), Sarah Groom (Gamlingay Parish Council) and Councillor Bridget Smith (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 4 March 2014.  The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being design of the building, adverse impact on the character of the area and adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the following terms:

Within three months of the date of the Decision Notice:

·         Relinquish use of the basement flat (No.3 The Lakes) with the walls and the tanking which form the dwelling to be demolished in accordance with the drawings.

·         Convert the outbuilding from two dwellings to one dwelling in accordance with the drawings and schedule of works included with the application

·         Secure financial contributions towards theprovision and maintenance of public open space, the off-site provision of indoor community facilities, and the provision of household waste receptacles.

and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee authorised officers to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the immediate cessation of the use of the outbuilding as two dwellings with a six-month compliance period.

Joseph Greenhow (agent for the applicant) addressed the meeting.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the following terms:

Within three months of the date of the Decision Notice:

·         Relinquish use of the basement flat (No.3 The Lakes) with the walls and the tanking which form the dwelling to be demolished in accordance with the drawings.

·         Convert the outbuilding from two dwellings to one dwelling in accordance with the drawings and schedule of works included with the application

·         Secure financial contributions towards the provision and maintenance of public open space, the off-site provision of indoor community facilities, and the provision of household waste receptacles.

and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee authorised officers to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the immediate cessation of the use of the outbuilding as two dwellings with a six-month compliance period.

This application did not appear on the agenda published on 25 February 2014. However, the Chairman agreed to accept it as a late item by reason of its urgency, namely that: -

• Officers needed Members’ decision before 25 March 2014 because they needed to present the Council’s evidence in relation to a public inquiry by that date to clarify its position in relation to the visual impact of the development and was in the public interest. 

• The next scheduled Planning Committee meeting was not until 2 April 2014, and a decision at that time would compromise the Council’s position in relation to any costs application.

• It was not practical to convene a Special meeting of the Committee.

The Committee agreed to amend the putative reason for refusal (ii) be amended so as to read: -

“The development would result in the loss of a visually important open buffer, which presently separates Waterbeach and Waterbeach Barracks, to the harm of the setting of each. It would represent an undesirable coalescence of the village and Barracks. As such, the development is contrary to the adopted Local Development Framework 2007 at Policy DP/3, which seeks to prevent development that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on village character; and contrary to  Policy DP/7, which states that outside village frameworks only development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses which need to be located in the countryside will be permitted. The development would conflict with the aims of the policy, which is to seek the protection of the countryside from encroachment and to help guard against incremental growth in unsustainable locations.”

Such amendment should help to ensure that the appeal for non-determination is considered against the correct development plan policies and in respect of the correctly identified adverse impacts of the proposed development on this site. 

This application had not appeared on the agenda published on 25 February 2014. However, the Chairman agreed to accept it as a late item by reason of its urgency, namely that: -

• Officers needed Members’ decision before 25 March 2014 because they needed to present the Council’s evidence in relation to a public inquiry by that date to clarify its position in relation to the visual impact of the development and was in the public interest. 

• The next scheduled Planning Committee meeting was not until 2 April 2014, and a decision at that time would compromise the Council’s position in relation to any costs application.

• It was not practical to convene a Special meeting of the Committee.

The Committee agreed to amend the putative reason for refusal (ii) be amended so as to read: -

“The development would result in the loss of a visually important open buffer, which presently separates Waterbeach and Waterbeach Barracks, to the harm of the setting of each. It would represent an undesirable coalescence of the village and Barracks. As such, the development is contrary to the adopted Local Development Framework 2007 at Policy DP/3, which seeks to prevent development that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on village character; and contrary to  Policy DP/7, which states that outside village frameworks only development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses which need to be located in the countryside will be permitted. The development would conflict with the aims of the policy, which is to seek the protection of the countryside from encroachment and to help guard against incremental growth in unsustainable locations.”

Such amendment should help to ensure that the appeal for non-determination is considered against the correct development plan policies and in respect of the correctly identified adverse impacts of the proposed development on this site. 

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

The Committee received and noted a report on Appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.