Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest as an elected Member of Cambridgeshire County Council, a statutory consultee for all planning applications on the agenda.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2012 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2012.

Prior to consideration of the planning applications on the agenda, the Interim Head of Planning outlined the implications of the new National Planning Policy Framework.

The agenda had been prepared during March and published on 27 March 2012. Later that same day, the Government had published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF came into force on 27 March 2012. The Interim Head of Planning sent an e-mail to Planning Committee members notifying them about this change in national policy and referring them to the relevant NPPF document.

The NPPF had replaced the Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance, and Ministerial and other guidance detailed in Annexe 3. Because of the timing of the agenda publication date, reports referred to the some of these Planning Policy Statements and to some of the other Guidance. Officers had issued written updates prior to the Committee meeting and would supplement these with verbal updates in respect of the agenda items where appropriate.

Paragraph 214 of Annex 1 to the NPPF introduced transitional arrangements such that the Planning Committee should for 12 months from 27 March 2012 continue to give full weight to relevant policies in development plan documents adopted since 2004 even if there was a degree of conflict with the NPPF.

Officers would provide Planning Committee members with hard copies of the NPPF and two related documents also issued by Government in March 2012, namely Technical Guidance to the NPPF and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  The Committee authorised the issue and service of an Enforcement Notice with a compliance period of 12 months.

Ian Simmons (objector) and Gillian Wadkin (applicant) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  The Committee authorised the issue and service of an Enforcement Notice with a compliance period of 12 months.

The Appendix is attached to the electronic version of the agenda, viewable by following the links from www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to refuse the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and including wider sustainability and affordable housing issues, subject to clarification of the proposed visibility splays on the existing hedgerow fronting Beach Road.

Mr Biggs (for the applicant) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee gave officers delegated powers to refuse the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and including wider sustainability and affordable housing issues, subject to clarification of the proposed visibility splays on the existing hedgerow fronting Beach Road.

Councillor Lynda Harford declared a personal interest as a member of Cottenham Parish Council.  She had attended the Planning Sub-Committee meeting at which this application had beendiscussed, provided information during the course of the debate, but did notvote.

The Committee approved the application as amended by drawing number 012/397-1a date stamped 23 March 2012, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee approved the application as amended by drawing number 012/397-1a date stamped 23 March 2012, subject to the Conditions referred to 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).

Beverley England (applicant) addressed the meeting.  Councillor Sebastion Kindersley read out a statement prepared by Councillor Cicely Murfitt (the local Member) who was unable to attend 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 refused the application contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the proposal’s negative impact on the street scene and its failure either to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

Mr Catherall (objector), Amy Richardson (applicant’s agent) and Mr Hallett (Bassingbourn Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering  this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the proposal’s negative impact on the street scene and its failure either to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

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).

Upon the Chairman’s casting vote, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and to an additional Condition requiring reinstatement of the field should the business fail.  Members asked officers to make sure that the Condition seeking to address drainage concerns relating to the site should be complied with prior to the first residential occupation of the site.

Dr Catherine Hills (objector), Mr Reynolds (applicant’s agent) and Fiona Whelan (Caldecote Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Upon the Chairman’s casting vote, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and to an additional Condition requiring reinstatement of the field should the business fail.  Members asked officers to make sure that the Condition seeking to address drainage concerns relating to the site should be complied with prior to the first residential occupation of the site.

Councillor Tumi Hawkins declared a personal interest as having attended the Caldecote Parish Council meeting at which this application had been discussed.  

Councillor Hazel Smith declared a personal interest because of her acquaintance with the applicant, a resident of her Ward  of Milton.

The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, proportions and design, does not adversely impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Norman Hall, does not harm the setting or character of the Conservation Area, and has no adverse impact on the amenity, tranquillity and function of the village.

Brian Christian (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Mick Martin (local member) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering  this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, proportions and design, does not adversely impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Norman Hall, does not harm the setting or character of the Conservation Area, and has no adverse impact on the amenity, tranquillity and function of the village.

The Committee approved the application as amended by plans date stamped 5 March 2012, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Tom Stroud (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application as amended by plans date stamped 5 March 2012, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Appendices 1 to 6 are attached to the electronic version of the agenda, viewable by following the links from www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the receipt and satisfactory resolution of any further comments in respect of aviation matters, and to the Conditions set out in the Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) other than the proposed Condition relating to archaeology (which was no longer needed).

After careful consideration, the Chairman relaxed the public speaking protocol in order to hear a wide range of views, including from parishes neighbouring Gamlingay.  Accordingly, Mr. Chris Presland (objector – Gamlingay), Michael Astor (objector - Hatley)), Mr Dagless (objector – Hatley Cockayne), Chris Smith (applicant),  Wayne Bacon (supporter), Mr Wilsher (supporter),and  Sarah Groom (Gamlingay Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the receipt and satisfactory resolution of any further comments in respect of aviation matters, and to the Conditions set out in the Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) other than the proposed Condition relating to archaeology (which was no longer needed).

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal and prejudicial interest because of his acquaintance with all those involved with the application although he had no financial connection with the proposal and derived no benefit from it.  Councillor Kindersley addressed the Committee prior to any other speaker, then withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

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

Elaine Prime (applicant) and Councillor Surinder Soond (local Messaddressed the meeting.

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 Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and additional Conditions to alleviate the effects of increased traffic flow and prohibiting the carrying out of any construction work during the bird breeding season.

Rob Searle (Meldreth Parish Council) and Councillor Surinder Soond addressed the meeting.

,

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and additional Conditions to alleviate the effects of increased traffic flow and prohibiting the carrying out of any construction work during the bird breeding season.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that, by virtue of its siting, scale and design, the proposal neither preserved nor enhanced the character of theConservation Area.

Dr. Patrick Carnegy (objector) addressed the meetttting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that, by virtue of its siting, scale and design, the proposal neither preserved nor enhanced the character of theConservation Area.

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

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 April 2012.   The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Nick Wright declared a personal and prejudicial interest as the applicant and because the application site was adjacent to his residence.  He addressed the meeting then withdrew from the Chamber, took no  part in the debate and did not vote.

The Committee considered a report into the review of the public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.

The Planning Committee adopted the draft Protocol dated April 2012, subject to the following amendments to the Section ‘Can those not on the Planning Committee speak at Planning Committee meetings?’:

1.    At (4), the addition of the following two sentences: ‘Where a local Member (whether a Committee member or not) has declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter being discussed, that Member will address the Committee before the Objector and / or Applicant (or agent or supporter) and / or Parish Council and, if applicable, before the Case Officer or any other officer. The local Member will then leave the room, take no part in the debate, not sit in any public gallery and not vote.’

2.    Insertion of the words  ‘and material’ between the words ‘exceptional’ and ‘circumstances’ so that the final sentence of the section reads, ‘In exceptional and material circumstances, the Committee Chairman may opt to make special arrangements such as where a neighbouring parish is perceived as being affected by a proposal, or for a Portfolio Holder.’

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

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