Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 1 and 6 December 2010 as correct records.  These minutes are attached to the electronic version of the agenda, which can be accessed by following the links from www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as correct records, the minutes of the meetings held on 1 December 2010 and 6 December 2010.

 The Committee approved the rectangular signs to side elevations, subject to the Condition set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), but refused the proposed fascia sign to the front elevation by virtue of its modern projecting lettering and use of non-traditional acrylic materials being unduly prominent and unsympathetic in appearance within the special historic centre of Great Shelford, designated as a Conservation Area.  Members considered the fascia sign to be contrary to the requirements of Policies CH/4 and CH/8 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2007, the South Cambridgeshire Development Affecting Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document 2009, the Great Shelford Village Design Statement and Planning Policy statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment), all of which require advertisements either to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and to contribute positively to the appearance of an attractive and cared-for environment.

Richard Farndale (representing the Shelford Tesco Action Group), Matthew Roe (representing the applicant Company), and County Councillor Tony Orgee (Sawston Electoral Division covering the village of Great Shelford) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 12 January 2011. The Committee approved the rectangular signs to side elevations, subject to the Condition set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), but refused the proposed fascia sign to the front elevation by virtue of its modern projecting lettering and use of non-traditional acrylic materials being unduly prominent and unsympathetic in appearance within the special historic centre of Great Shelford, designated as a Conservation Area.  Members considered the fascia sign to be contrary to the requirements of Policies CH/4 and CH/8 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2007, the South Cambridgeshire Development Affecting Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document 2009, the Great Shelford Village Design Statement and Planning Policy statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment), all of which require advertisements either to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and to contribute positively to the appearance of an attractive and cared-for environment.

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

The Committee refused the application to install an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) for the reasons set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). 

Richard Farndale (representing the Shelford Tesco Action Group), Matthew Roe (representing the applicant Company), and County Councillor Tony Orgee (Sawston Electoral Division covering the village of Great Shelford) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 12 January 2011 The Committee refused the application to install an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) for the reasons set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). 

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

The Committee deferred the application to install plant and associated fencing in order to allow officers to assess its impact in terms of noise and traffic congestion, reference being made to relevant policies contained in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007, and such assessment taking into account impact at various times of the day and evening.  Members instructed officers to present a further report to a future meeting of the Planning Committee so that a final decision could then be made. 

Richard Farndale (representing the Shelford Tesco Action Group), Matthew Roe (representing the applicant Company), Bridget Hodge (representing Great Shelford Parish Council), and County Councillor Tony Orgee (Sawston Electoral Division covering the village of Great Shelford) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 12 January 2011.  The Committee deferred the application to install plant and associated fencing in order to allow officers to assess its impact in terms of noise and traffic congestion, reference being made to relevant policies contained in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007, and such assessment taking into account impact at various times of the day and evening.  Members instructed officers to present a further report to a future meeting of the Planning Committee so that a final decision could then be made. 

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

 The Committee refused the application to alter the shop front.  Reasons: Members considered that the proposed alterations would not enhance, and would be inconsistent with, the character of the Conservation Area, and would detract from the local vernacular when compared with the previous shop front.  As such, the proposal conflicted with policies CH/5 and CH/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

County Councillor Tony Orgee (Sawston Electoral Division covering the village of Great Shelford) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 12 January 2011.  The Committee refused the application to alter the shop front.  Reasons: Members considered that the proposed alterations would not enhance, and would be inconsistent with, the character of the Conservation Area, and would detract from the local vernacular when compared with the previous shop front.  As such, the proposal conflicted with policies CH/5 and CH/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report, Conditions 2 and 7 being amended as indicated in the update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and additional Conditions requiring the submission of details of the parking area layout and of a landscaping scheme acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.         

Don Proctor (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report, Conditions 2 and 7 being amended as indicated in the update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and additional Conditions requiring the submission of details of the parking area layout and of a landscaping scheme acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.         

Councillor Charles Nightingale declared a personal interest as a member of great Shelford Parish Council.

The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Reasons: The alterations and extension of the garage would materially alter its size and massing such that it would appear unduly overbearing on the outlook from, and increase the existing level of overshadowing of the surrounding residential properties.  As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.  The changes to the size and massing of the existing garage and the changes to its roof would give it an incongruous appearance and the appearance of a dwelling when viewed from adjoining properties to the detriment to the visual amenity of the surrounding area.  As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/2 which states that all new development must be of high quality design and as appropriate to the scale and nature of the development should preserve or enhance the character of the local area and be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, mass, form, siting and design in relation to the surrounding area; and to Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.

Stirling Essex (objector) and Councillor Dr. Steve Harangozo (local Member) addressed the meeting

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site, and the gardens of 1 and 2 Mallows Close, on 12 January 2011.  The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members concluded that the alterations and extension of the garage would materially alter its size and massing such that it would appear unduly overbearing on the outlook from, and increase the existing level of overshadowing of the surrounding residential properties.  As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.  The changes to the size and massing of the existing garage and the changes to its roof would give it an incongruous appearance and the appearance of a dwelling when viewed from adjoining properties to the detriment to the visual amenity of the surrounding area.  As such the proposal would unacceptably affect the existing level of amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers contrary to SCDC LDF DPD Policy DP/2 which states that all new development must be of high quality design and as appropriate to the scale and nature of the development should preserve or enhance the character of the local area and be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, mass, form, siting and design in relation to the surrounding area; and to Policy DP/3 which states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.

 The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Gerald Cambridge (applicant) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Lynda Harford declared a personal interest as a member of Cottenham Parish Council considering the matter afresh.

The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Reason: Members considered that the proposal posed no significant harm in planning or conservation terms.  Appropriate safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the Decision Notice. 

Dr Michael O’Sullivan (applicant) and Councillor John G Williams (local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Reason: Members considered that the proposal posed no significant harm in planning or conservation terms.  Appropriate safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the Decision Notice. 

 The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

 The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

David Mead (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application, as amended by drawings numbered 10/29/03 B and 10/29/02 B date stamped 29 November 2010, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Helen Wilson (objector) and Paul Greaney (applicant) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application, as amended by drawings numbered 10/29/03 B and 10/29/02 B date stamped 29 November 2010, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

 The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

 The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application to extend the time limit for implementation of extant planning permission S/0996/07/F, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application to extend the time limit for implementation of extant planning permission S/0996/07/F, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Reason: Members considered that the proposal would not lead to any significant loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.  The Decision Notice would refer to relevant policies within the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and contain appropriate safeguarding Conditions.

Paul Belton (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Reason: Members considered that the proposal would not lead to any significant loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.  The Decision Notice would refer to relevant policies within the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and contain appropriate safeguarding Conditions.

 The Committee received and noted a report updating Members about measures being adopted in Cambourne to address flooding concerns in Cambourne.

The Planning Lawyer highlighted paragraph 2(f) in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

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

The Head of Planning highlighted the fact that the Council had won 27 of the 30 Appeals referred to in the report.  He concluded that this reflected very positively on the role played by officers.  Councillor Nick Wright, Planning Portfolio Holder, welcomed the results.

The progress report is attached as an appendix to the electronic version of the agenda. 

The Committee received and noted a summary of current enforcement cases. 

The Head of Planning referred Members to the recent case relating to trees at Histon Football Club.  He acknowledged that the standard Committee report did not refer to enforcement action other than in relation to development control, and assured Members that, in future, this would be rectified.