Agenda and draft minutes

To receive Apologies for Absence from Committee members. 

Cllr Barry Chapman sent Apologies for Absence. Cllr Ian Bates attended the meeting as substitute.

Councillor Douglas de Lacey declared a non-pecuniary Interest as Chairman of Girton Parish Council where issues relating to Northstowe Phase 2 had been discussed.

Councillor Alex Riley reiterated that he had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest by reason of the proximity of his domestic property to Northstowe, but that he had a dispensation allowing him to speak and vote.

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest because he had attended meetings of Oakington & Westwick Parish Council and Rampton Parish Council in order to provide factual information upon request. Councillor Wotherspoon is not an elected or co-opted member of either Parish Council and did not contribute to the debates.

Committee members reiterated that they were coming to this meeting afresh.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2015 as a correct record. 

The Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2015, subject to the following:

Minute 5 – Reserved Matters application for the Hatton’s Road ponds Strategic Engineering Works

In the resolution, delete “a” between the words “to” and “Condition”, make Condition plural,  and add a reference to life belts, so that the end of the Minute now reads:

“The Committee approved the application, subject to Conditions ensuring that the development is built in accordance with the approved plans, and that an appropriate number of life belts are positioned around the banks of the ponds, and an Informative about not disturbing nesting birds during the nesting season.”

Minute 6 – Progress Update on Negotiations on the planning application and related matters

Amend the seventh bullet point (“The importance of recognising viability while striving for as high a level as possible of affordable housing across the entire development”) so that it now reads:

“The importance of affordable housing within the context of housing need throughout South Cambridgeshire, and the requirement for further details about viability across the entire development of Northstowe”

The Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee considered a planning application  seeking outline planning permission for the development of Phase 2 of Northstowe with details of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access reserved, and full planning permission for the Southern Access Road (West).

For the purposes of the meeting, the distinction was drawn between:

A          Development of the main Phase 2 development area for up to 3,500 dwellings, two primary schools, the secondary school, the town centre including employment uses, formal and informal recreational space and landscaped areas, the eastern sports hub, the remainder of the western sports hub (to complete the provision delivered at Phase 1), the busway, a primary road to link to the southern access, construction haul route, engineering and infrastructure works; and

B          Full planning permission for the construction of a highway link (Southern Access Road (West)) between the proposed new town of Northstowe and the B1050, improvements to the B1050, and associated landscaping and drainage.

Officers introduced the report by referring to the following:

·       Process and timeline

·       Changes made to the proposal since the last meeting

·       Typos

Members raised the following:

·        Implications should the Committee reject the draft Conditions

Answer: there are 90 or so Conditions. It is for the Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee to agree what form those Conditions should take, and for South Cambridgeshire District Council, as Local Planning Authority, to issue a Decision Notice subject to those Conditions, as agreed.

·       Should the parameter plans be consulted upon?

Answer: the nature and quantum are not so significant as to require further consultation.

·       Implications of the Committee requiring an increase in the amount of green space

Answer: The amount of green space was discussed at the informal briefing on 19 February 2015

·       Implications of combining the town centre park and town square

Answer: Acceptable for the park and square to be combined as long as there is a clear distinction between the uses. An increase in the total area had been proposed by the Applicant, and if agreed, would be secured by Condition.

·       Was Counsel’s advice sought about re-consulting over the revised land proposed for the Park and Town Square?

Answer: No

The Committee then received a number of representations from public speakers:

Gill Ashby – Chairman, Longstanton Parish Council

“Firstly I want to say in the strongest terms possible on behalf of Longstanton Parish Council that we are in favour of an exemplar new town with a vibrant Centre. We would also like to confirm we agree with the points raised by Rampton Drift and Longstanton residents, LDHS [Longstanton & District Heritage Society], Swavesey Parish Council,and also agree with the height issue of surrounding properties overlooking Rampton Drift and Long Lane

So to Phase 2, 3500 houses, schools, and the Town Centre. It was interesting when the Chairman was interviewed on radio Cambridge last week, he agreed that “Cambourne didn’t get everything right”. And when he was interviewed previously said “throughout the build out of Northstowe we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The following post-meeting note does not form part of the formal minutes, but is included by way of clarification.

While the Chairman purported to adjourn the meeting, it became apparent that it would be extremely difficult to reconvene the meeting, with the same Committee members present, given the imminent local elections (and purdah period), and Members’ pre-arranged holidays. Subsequent legal advice was that the correct process for adjourning a public meeting had not been followed and that, therefore, the purported adjournment should be seen, instead, as an abandonment of the meeting. As such, the meeting was deemed to have concluded, without a decision being made, A new meeting would take place in due course.