Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Anna Bradnam has sent Apologies. To receive apologies for absence from other committee members. 

There were no Apologies for Absence.

Declarations of interest were declared as follows:

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2015 as a correct record. The minutes are available at www.scambs.gov.uk

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2015 as a correct record.

The report from Cambridgeshire County Council, and Appendix B (Order plan), are attached to the electronic version of the agenda on the Council’s website and included in the printed copy of the agenda. Appendix A and Appendices C to I are attached to the electronic version of the agenda only.

The Committee agreed that

1.     South Cambridgeshire District Council, as Local Planning Authority, should indicate to Cambridgeshire County Council that the Order should be made;

2.     an Order be made, under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,  to divert part of the Public Footpath No.1 Hauxton, as requested by the applicant; and

3.     the final route be inspected by Cambridgeshire County Council as Local Highways Authority and certified as satisfactory before the Order comes into effect.

The Committee considered a report on the proposed diversion of part of Public Footpath No.1 in Hauxton. Members noted that the diversion was needed in order to

enable development of the former Bayer Crop Science site.

Cambridgeshire County Council had prepared the report in its capacity of agent for South Cambridgeshire District Council in processing public path orders under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This agency agreement had been agreed between the two Authorities in February 2007.

The Committee agreed that

1.     South Cambridgeshire District Council, as Local Planning Authority, indicate to Cambridgeshire County Council that the Order be made;

2.     an Order be made, under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,  to divert part of the Public Footpath No.1 Hauxton, as requested by the applicant; and

3.     the final route be inspected by Cambridgeshire County Council, as Local Highways Authority, and certified as satisfactory before the Order comes into effect.

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 securing

·       The building of three new classrooms at Barrington Primary School - £1,010,520

·       Provision of pedestrian cycle links and improvements to Foxton Station, Traffic Management within Barrington Village, Bus Service and Infrastructure Improvements - £2,040,00

·       New village hall and refurbishment of existing sports pavilion - £1,465,000

·       Provision of new football pitch, two tennis courts, car park serving the 

·       recreation facilities, land for allotments - £292,000

·       Healthcare contribution - £185,900

·       Household waste receptacles - £17,136

·       Public open space maintenance - £200,000

·       Transfer of land to Barrington Parish Council

and to safeguarding Conditions, including those set out in the update report.

Members visited the site on 2 June 2015.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, an ordinary member of the Planning Committee, withdrew from the meeting for the entirety of this item and sat in the public gallery. Apart from addressing the meeting as a public speaker, Councillor Kindersley took no part in the debate, and did not vote.

Mike Brunner (an objector from Barrington), Elizabeth Cooke (an objector from Haslingfield), Ian Southcote (applicant’s agent), Tony Fletcher (Barrington Parish Council), Robert Branch (Haslingfield Parish Council), Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer (local Member for Barrington), Councillor Robin Page (local Member for Haslingfield) and Councillor Sebastian Kindersley (County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Gamlingay, including the Parish of Barrington) addressed the meeting.  During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       Concern about unsustainable growth

·       Negative impact on the local school

·       Traffic implications, particularly for Haslingfield

·       The travel plan in place when the site had a commercial use

·       Environmental issues

·       Flooding concern

·       Impact on primary health care provision

·       Concern about the lack of any economic benefit

·       A statement that housing, though needed, should not be provided at any cost

·       The site’s remote location would necessitate car use

·       A plea not to destroy the countryside

·       An observation that five year land supply was only one of several policies to be considered

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 securing

·       The building of three new classrooms at Barrington Primary School - £1,010,520

·       Provision of pedestrian cycle links and improvements to Foxton Station, Traffic Management within Barrington Village, Bus Service and Infrastructure Improvements - £2,040,00

·       New village hall and refurbishment of existing sports pavilion - £1,465,000

·       Provision of new football pitch, two tennis courts, car park serving the 

·       recreation facilities, land for allotments - £292,000

·       Healthcare contribution - £185,900

·       Household waste receptacles - £17,136

·       Public open space maintenance - £200,000

·       Transfer of land to Barrington Parish Council

and to safeguarding Conditions, including those set out in the update report.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that the proposal amounted to an unsustainable development in that it would

1.     have an adverse visual impact on this part of the village and cumulatively create a hard urban edge to the village; and

2.     fail to deliver community cohesion through its demands on the local doctor’s surgery and primary school for which there is no certainty that the additional capacity required can be met

Members visited the site on 2 June 2015.

Colin Conner (representing the Meldhac group of local residents) and Shane Lawrence (objectors), Tim Havers (applicant’s agent), Philip Kratz (agent for Melbourn Parish Council), and Councillors Val Barrett and Jose Hales (local Members) addressed the meeting. During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       Concern about access to facilities and public transport

·       Concern about the quality of design and quality of life

·       Infrastructure considerations, including traffic and pressure on the doctors surgery

·       Concern about the disproportionate nature of the site

·       A suggestion that the proposal was in the wrong location

·       Scepticism about the need for a care home

·       The 40% level of affordable housing (both positive and negative) surrounding environmental, social and economic factors

·       The contribution the development would make in tackling the current shortfall within South Cambridgeshire in the supply of land for housing

·       Sustainability arguments

·       An agreed reduced period of two years for dealing with Reserved Matters

·       The consequences of many of the Council’s policies being deemed “out of date” by virtue of its inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply

·       An argument that benefits from the development were not sufficient to outweigh planning harm

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that the proposal amounted to an unsustainable development in that it would

1.     have an adverse visual impact on this part of the village and cumulatively create a hard urban edge to the village; and

2.     fail to deliver community cohesion through its demands on the local doctor’s surgery and primary school for which there is no certainty that the additional capacity required can be met

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

Ralph Rickards (objector) and Tony Nicholas (Cottenham Parish Council) addressed the meeting. During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       Overshadowing, above and beyond that caused by existing trees

·       Highway safety concerns

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.

Members visited the site on 2 June 2015.

Shazia Hussain (applicant) addressed the meeting, saying the proposal sought to make the property fit for the purpose of a growing family.

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, as slightly amended, referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

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

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the receipt of outstanding comments from consultees, Conditions requested by them, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the receipt of outstanding comments from consultees, Conditions requested by them, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

1.     The adverse impact on the character, amenity, tranquillity and function of the Protected Village Amenity Area contrary to Policy CH/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and Policy NH/11 of the Proposed Local Plan; and

2.     The adverse impact on the spaciousness and open character of the area, and setting of the Grade II* Listed windmill.

Members visited the site on 2 June 2015.

Stephen Temple (objector) and Councillor David Jenkins (Histon & Impington Parish Council) addressed nthe meeting. During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       The Protected Village Amenity Area

·       The mixed character of Impington

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

1.     The adverse impact on the character, amenity, tranquillity and function of the Village Amenity Area contrary to Policy CH/6 of the South Protected Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and Policy NH/11 of the Proposed Local Plan; and

2.     The adverse impact on the spaciousness and open character of the area, and setting of the Grade II* Listed windmill.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.It would instead be determined under officer delegation following the withdrawal of its objections by Linton Parish Council.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda. It would instead be determined under officer delegation following the withdrawal of its objections by Linton Parish Council.

The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Mr Hacker (applicant) and Councillor Roger Hall (a local Member) addressed the meeting. During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       The implications of improvements to the A14

·       Green Belt issues

·       Extent of the extension proposed

·       Traffic implications for the village of Dry Drayton

·       Landscaping

·       Likely impact on the open countryside

The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an extra Condition requiring a contaminated land survey.

Members visited the site on 2 June 2015.

Colin Blundell (applicant) and Councillor Lawrence Wragg (Fowlmere Parish Council) addressed the meeting. During the course of public speaking, Planning Committee members noted

·       The method and extent of marketing the property

·       The site’s location outside the village envelope

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an extra Condition requiring a contaminated land survey.

The Planning Committee endorsed the draft protocol attached at Appendix A to the report from the Legal and Democratic Services Manager,  reflecting the changes highlighted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report, and Appendix B (changes included).

The Committee considered a report reviewing the public speaking protocol and proposing two amendments highlighted in paragraphs 8 and 9.

The Planning Committee endorsed the draft protocol attached at Appendix A to the report from the Legal and Democratic Services Manager,  reflecting the changes highlighted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report,), for use with immediate effect.

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.