Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor whose electoral division of Gamlingay included Orwell. 

To authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings held on 20 April 2010 and 27 May 2010 as correct records. 

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as correct records, the minutes of the meetings held on 20 April 2010 and 27 May 2010.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee was minded to seek an Injunction in this instance, but deferred making a final decision until its next meeting.  In the meantime, Members instructed planning officers to write to the landowner seeking a valid application for planning permission, receipt of which would halt court action while the application was processed through to determination.  Members instructed Environmental Health officers to visit the site and investigate the issue of contaminated land.

Further to the meeting on 26 January 2010 (Minute 6 refers), the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee considered a report detailing the current situation relating to the sale of vehicles from the forecourt of the former Q8 garage by the A10 in the Parish of Foxton without the specific consent of the Local Planning Authority.    In January, the Sub-Committee had concluded that a deadline be given for the site owner to submit a planning application.  However, the resolution had not been based on any material harm arising from the proposal – an essential factor in determining whether or not to issue and serve an enforcement notice. 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that, in spite of further discussions with the landowner, he still had not submitted a planning application.  However, following further consideration, officers had recognised that there was no significant harm in planning terms, and were now proposing “positive enforcement action” as a way of addressing local concerns while seeking to regulate the vehicle sales activity.  This would involve defining from which parts of the site sales could and could not take place, and securing the landowner’s formal agreement to this.  The Council had to consider the impact of vehicle sales on a rural area.

Councillor Deborah Roberts, the local Member, said that it was essential that there should be public confidence in the planning system.   If people perceived the Council as allowing that system to be undermined in certain cases, a very dangerous precedent would have been set.  She said that the land owner had been given ample opportunity to apply for planning permission, and that the Council should now issue and serve an enforcement notice.  Councillors Charlie Nightingale and Pippa Corney supported the comments of the local Member.

The Head of Planning reminded Members that the Council could not force the landowner to submit a planning application.  He commended the “positive enforcement” approach as the best option, given the difficulty in identifying any planning harm.  Councillor Nightingale referred to the Council’s pre-application charging regime, and asked whether the landowner was receiving free advice.  In reply, the Head of Planning said that the landowner was not being advised, but was being told what he had to do in order to regularise his business in planning terms.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley raised the issue of the landowner applying for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development.  In reply, the Senior Lawyer advised that the appropriate timescale in this case was ten years, during which time the unauthorised activity must have operated continuously.  Service of an enforcement notice effectively would “stop the clock”.  There would then almost certainly be an appeal, and the Council would have to defend its reasons for the enforcement notice.  It would have to satisfy the Inspector that there had been a breach of planning control in the first place, and that it was in the public interest to enforce.  It would be an abuse of power for the Council to use enforcement action as a form of punishment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee resolved that no further action be taken.    Reason: Taking into consideration the overall extent of the land level increase and its siting, Members considered that the development did not cause significant harm in planning terms to the local area or to residential amenity.

Further to the meeting on 20 April 2010 (Minute 18 refers), the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee considered a report about unauthorised earth works that had raised land level to the rear garden of 9 High Street, Orwell.  Members visited the site on 21 July 2010.  Councillor Deborah Roberts had not attended that site visit but had since had a look at the land in question.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley described the development as unneighbourly.  However, he acknowledged that it was an unusual site, and accepted that the works had been completed.  He acknowledged that, were the Council to take action in this case, it would not have sufficient grounds on which successfully to defend a subsequent appeal. Councillor Kindersley said that, with regret, he had to support the officers’ recommendation.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee resolved that no further action be taken.    Members agreed that, taking into consideration the overall extent of the land level increase and its siting, the development did not cause significant harm in planning terms to the local area or to residential amenity.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee resolved that South Cambridgeshire District Council take enforcement action against the occupiers of Plots 12 Victoria View, 15 Water Lane, and 5, 5A, 6, 10 and 11 Orchard Drive, Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  Reasons:

1.                  Consistency with previous action

2.                  Achievement of planning aims

3.                  Demonstration of the Council’s commitment to treating everybody equally and fairly

Prior to the introduction of this item, the Senior Lawyer reminded Members that, as well as declaring any personal or prejudicial interests, they should also consider whether there existed any previous history that might give a public perception of pre-determination were they to participate in the debate. The Senior Lawyer referred to advice that had been tendered in advance of the meeting and cited specific cases that indicated decisions arrived at in such circumstances were vulnerable to legal challenge.   Councillor Deborah Roberts told the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee that she had neither personal nor prejudicial interests but, in order to prevent the possibility that any decision about to be made might be challenged on the basis that, in law, it had been made improperly, she had decided to take no part in the debate.   

Councillor Roberts withdrew to the public gallery, took no part in the subsequent debate, and did not vote.

Members visited the site on 21 July 2010.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee considered a report summarising the current situation relating to unauthorised Traveller plots at Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  Members considered the report in open session but recognised that reference to any of the details contained in the confidential appendices would have required exclusion of the Press and public.

Jackie Smith (a Cottenham resident) and Councillors Simon Edwards and Tim Wotherspoon (local Members) addressed the meeting.  Councillor Wotherspoon also read out a statement from Cottenham Parish Council. 

The Head of Planning outlined the legal and planning history associated with Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  He explained that, although Plot 12 Victoria View formed the basis of the report, officers had deemed it appropriate to seek Members’ views, at the same time, on Plots 5, 5A, 6, 10 and 14 Orchard Drive and Plot 15 Water Lane.  He strongly refuted media coverage that had suggested that the officers’ recommendation had been reached on the basis of potential cost.  By way of clarification, the Head of Planning stated that the recommendation to Members was as set out in paragraph 24(c) of the report, namely to continue to tolerate while the Council develops a plan for Smithy Fen with the residents, and dismissed media speculation that the concept of “toleration” meant that the Council would be allowing illegal plots to become legal. 

The Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) said that the proposed Management Plan for Smithy Fen would cover issues not relevant to planning and enforcement.  She said that the Council would like to work with residents in order to develop the Plan and enhance the quality of life for all concerned.

Short of compromising the legal privilege relating to Appendix 1, the Senior Lawyer summarised Counsel’s Opinion.  He concluded that Members would need to balance the personal circumstances of those occupying the plots with planning expediency.  One consequence of taking enforcement action might be the need for the Council, in its capacity as Local Housing Authority, to process a series of homelessness applications.

Councillor Wotherspoon spoke enthusiastically about his visit to Smithy Fen.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.