Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillors Anna Bradnam and Deborah Roberts sent Apologies for Absence. Councillors Hazel Smith and Cicely Murfitt attended the meeting as their respective substitutes.

1.         Disclosable pecuniary interests (“DPI”)

A  DPI is where a committee member or his/her spouse or partner has any kind of beneficial interest in the land under consideration at the meeting.

 2.        Non-disclosable pecuniary interests

These are interests that are pecuniary involving a  personal financial benefit or detriment but do not come within the definition of a DPI.  An example would be where a member of their family/close friend (who is not their spouse or partner) has such an interest.

3.         Non-pecuniary interests

Where the interest is not one which involves any personal financial benefit or detriment to the Councillor but arises out of a close connection with someone or some  body /association.  An example would be membership of a sports committee/ membership of another council which is involved in the matter under consideration.

Councillor John Batchelor declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Minute 6 (S/2830/15/OL in Balsham) as Chair of Chilford Hundred Educational Trust, responsible for the local primary school. Councillor Batchelor was considering the matter afresh.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared non-pecuniary interests in respect of Minute 8 (S/3190/15/OL in Orwell) and Minute 13 (S/2512/15/FL in Little Eversden) as the Cambridgeshire County Councillor in whose Electoral Division (Gamlingay) both parishes were located. Councillor Kindersley had attended meetings of both Orwell and The Eversdens Parish Councils at which these applications had been discussed, but was now considering both matters afresh.

Councillor Tim Scott declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Minute 6 (S/2830/15/OL in Balsham) because of his acquaintance with a member of the family, which owns the land forming the basis of the application.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016.

Redevelopment of site for residential use (outline planning application, all matters reserved)

The Committee approved the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 reflecting the developer contributions set out in Appendix 1 (circulated at the meeting) and required to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and

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

Members visited the site on 5 July 2016.

Councillor Ken Winterbottom (Whittlesford Parish Council) and Councillor Peter Topping (local Member) addressed the meeting. Councillor Winterbottom reiterated the Parish Council’s disappointment, contained in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, that none of the 61 dwellings was to be affordable. He also demanded that there be an agreement in place to secure ongoing maintenance of the play area. Design of the development should be of a high standard. Councillor Topping shared the Parish Council’s comment about the absence of affordable housing, but appreciated the viability issues arising out of the need for remediation of the land. He also acknowledged that the presence of a railway station in the village added to its sustainability.

In response to a comment from Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, officers confirmed that the Section 106 Legal Agreement would make provision for the review of viability. Such a clause would be invaluable, for example, if remediation costs were lower than expected.

Following further debate, the Committee approved the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town            and Country Planning Act 1990 reflecting the developer contributions set out   in Appendix 1 (circulated at the meeting), and a provision for the review of the      potential viability of affordable housing, as required to make the development         acceptable in planning terms; and

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

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access for the erection of up to eighteen dwellings and associated infrastructure and works

The Committee approved the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 reflecting the developer contributions set out in Appendix 1 (issued as a supplement) and required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Policy DP/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and Paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

2.     The Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director; and

3.     An additional Condition requiring all the estate roads to be be built to an adoptable standard.

Members visited the site on 5 July 2016.

Matt Hare (applicant’s agent), Councillor Ken Winterbottom (Whittlesford Parish Council) and Councillor Peter Topping (local Member) addressed the meeting. Matt Hare said that the development, including seven affordable homes, complied with sustainability requirements, and had no adverse impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Winterbottom raised concerns relating to inadequacy of access, traffic, car parking and lack of visibility. He also requested that estate roads be constructed to an adoptable standard. Councillor Topping added traffic flow as an issue. Highways officers from Cambridgeshire County Council addressed these issues.

Following further discussion, the Committee approved the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 reflecting the developer contributions set out in Appendix 1 (issued as a supplement) and required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Policy DP/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 and Paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

2.     The Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director; and

3.     An additional Condition requiring all the estate roads to be be built to an adoptable standard.

Outline application for residential development and details of means of access up to 29 dwellings

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

Stuart Watkinson (objector), Kate Wood (agent) and Tim Holmes (applicant), Jeremy Wade (a community supporter invited to speak by the Chairman) addressed the meeting. Mr Watkinson highlighted concern about flooding, drainage and general safety. Kate Wood answered questions from Committee members relating to the comparison between different Group Villages, the nature of proposed traffic calming, the number of dwellings proposed as opposed to the maximum that would have been allowed had the Council been able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and flood risk.  Mr Wade described the project as essential. Not only was affordable housing needed, but the development would offer the opportunity for people to move into smaller properties, thus making larger properties in the village available for families. He added that the development looked to the future, and would help maintain numbers at the local school.

Highways officers outlined how Cambridgeshire County Council assesses speed limits.

The Head of Development Management summarised legal advice from Counsel instructed by the Local Planning Authority. This advice was that the LPA should continue to apply policies relating to ‘weight’ and ‘numbers’ in each individual instance.  Councillor John Batchelor also cited the village framework policy as crucial.

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

Outline planning permission for up to 140 residential dwellings, (including up to 40% affordable housing), removal of existing temporary agricultural structures and debris, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play area, community orchard and allotments, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access points from Highfields Road and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access

Had it not been appealed for non-determination, and had the Local Planning Authority still had power formally to determine the application, the Committee would have refused the application unanimously for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Such decision would inform officers detailed with defending the Appeal.

Phil Claridge (objector), Councillors Anna Mortenson and John Barker (Caldecote Parish Council) and Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins (local Member) addressed the meeting. Mr Claridge said that past growth of housing in Caldecote had not been matched by a corresponding growth in infrastructure. Car dependency was high, and there was a significant drainage issue in the village. The Parish Council pointed out that the site was outside the village framework. The proposal was too big, and did not include any employment potential. There was no doctors’ surgery in the village, and public transport was poor. Safety and flooding were cited as reasons for deeming Caldecote as unsuitable for further development. Councillor Dr. Hawkins started by thanking Paul Sexton, who had retired recently, for the work he had put into this application. Councillor Dr. Hawkins pointed out the proposal would increase the size of the village by 23%. She expressed concern about pressure on doctors’ appointments and about foul water drainage. Councillor Hawkins concluded that the development was unsustainable.

Had it not been appealed for non-determination, and had the Local Planning Authority still had power formally to determine the application, the Committee would have refused the application unanimously for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Such decision would inform officers detailed with defending the Appeal.

Outline planning application for up to 49 dwellings, community car park and coach drop-off facility, pumping station and associated infrastructure

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

Verity Holmes (objector), Paul Hunt (agent), Councillors Colin Hoptroff and Marilynn Lawton (Orwell Parish Council) and Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer (local Member) addressed the meeting. Verity Holmes said the proposal was not viable and pointed out that the village had limited amenities. Other concerns related to car parking, lighting and Ecology. Paul Hunt outlined the scheme’s benefits, including 40% Affordable Housing and £500,000 to upgrade to sewerage system. Councillors Hopstoff and Lawton highlighted their concerns relating to car dependency, traffic, car parking and foul water flooding. They argued that funding for a new pumping station should be additional to the Section 106 Legal Agreement rather than part of it. Councillor Van de Weyer pointed out that Orwell was a Group Village, and expressed concern about landscape impact.

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

20 Dwellings

The Committee deferred the application until a future meeting, preferably on 3 August 2016.

Members visited the site on 5 July 2016.

Paul Coburn (objector), Mitchell Tredgett (agent), Councillors Bernie Talbot and Pennie Zimmern (Great Abington Parish Council) and Councillor Tony Orgee (local Member) addressed the meeting. Paul Coburn voiced a number of concerns, including car parking, loss of a hedge, and density. Mitchell Tredgett said that this ap[plication had been locally-led and was policy compliant. He described it as an opening and welcoming development that would not impact on views. Councillors Talbot and Zimmern called for a development that would enhance an existing vibrant community and which bore the next generation in mind. Councillor Orgee noted that were currently 22 people on the housing waiting list, and that the proposal offered a good housing mix that would meet local needs. He would support subject to a landscape condition.

Members discussed a number of details including, in particular, tenure of the dwellings. Councillor Pippa Corney proposed, seconded by Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, that further consideration be deferred in order to allow the application to be amended with regard to tenure. The Committee deferred the application until a future meeting, preferably on 3 August 2016.

57 Dwellings

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 5 July 2016.

Councillor Brian Williams (speaking both as an individual objector and on behalf of Waterbeach Parish Council) and Councillor Peter Johnson (a local Member) addressed the meeting. Councillor Williams described the application as unsustainable, partly by virtue of failing to deliver infrastructure enhancements. He also said the development, especially the roadway, should be built in the context of the adjacent estate so as to provide continuity. Further concerns related to flooding, and the under-provision of public open space. Councillor Johnson said the drainage infrastructure, including the ditch along the southern boundary, would require regular maintenance.

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

Full Planning – Erection of 6 Dwellings with associated works including access alterations and landscaping following the removal of existing timber yard and associated structures.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and to the application being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

Members visited the site on 5 July 2016.

Claire Frost (agent) and Councillor john Williams (a local Member) addressed the meeting. Claire Frost highlighted the provision of houses, including affordable homes. There had been no objections from statutory consultees. Councillor Williams, seeking refusal of the application, expressed concerns about the suitability of the access leading on to a private road.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and to the application being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

Change of use of offices to school

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

Members visited the site on 5 July 2016.

David Cottee (Fulbourn Forum – objector), Mary Greer (applicant) accompanied by Matt Hare (agent)), Jonathan Barker (supporter), and Councillors Graham Cone and John Williams (local Members) addressed the meeting.  Mr. Cottee raised concerns about

·        Harm to the Conservation Area

·        The balance between availability and suitability

·        Traffic congestion

·        Road safety, given the presence of school children walking to and from school

·        Insufficient car parking provision

·        The lack of any community benefit

He also pointed out that Fulbourn was due to be redesignated as a Minor Rural Settlement in the emerging Local Plan. Mary Greer explained that the school had charitable status, and would offer bursaries to local pupils. The principal means of pupil transport to and from school would be mini-bus. Mr. Barker supported the application in the context of the projected need for over 40 new schools in Cambridgeshire during the next 15 years. After referring to support for the proposal from Fulbourn Parish Council, the local community and himself, Councillor Cone commended the proposal as a boost to employment. He said the building was ideal for use as a school and that the site was in such a prime location that it would be occupied sooner or later, even if the current proposal was rejected. Councillor Williams objected to the proposal on the grounds of policy, highway safety, change of use, and lack of space for mini-buses on site. He also pointed out that a new school for Cherry Hinton North was already being planned.

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

The Chairman reminded Members that, under Article 9 of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Standing Orders, unless three-quarters of Members present vote for the meeting to continue, any meeting that has lasted for four hours, excluding adjournments, will adjourn immediately.

The Planning Committee meeting had lasted over four hours at this point (excluding refreshment breaks). Members voted unanimously to deal with the remainder of the agenda at this meeting.

Proposed erection of a live/work unit with associated parking and landscaping including the demolition of 7 silos.

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

Councillor Clive Dalton (The Eversdens Parish Council) addressed the meeting. He referred in particular to the unacceptable layout of the proposed unit, and its proximity to numbers 10 and 12 Church Lane, but concluded that the amended application was the best that could be hoped for in the circumstances.

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

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee received a verbal update indicating that the site owners had commenced demolition of a commercial building (Class B1(A) and Class B8, and extension to existing storage building, as required by an Enforcement Notice.

Should the site owners fail to complete the demolition, Members requested that officers present a further report to a future Planning Committeemeeting so that they could consider whether or not to authorise Direct Action pursuant to Section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Committee received and noted a report relating to the unauthorised retention of a commercial building for offices (Class B1(A)) and storage (Class B8) use and extension to an existing storage building.

The Committee received a verbal update indicating that the site owners had commenced demolition. In view of this, the Planning Committee decided not to authorise officers to proceed with Direct Action at this stage.

However, should the site owners fail to complete the demolition, Members requested that officers present a further report to a future Planning Committee meeting so that they could consider whether or not they should then authorise Direct Action, pursuant to Section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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.